Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Long list of issues that need to be resolved

This article is fairly well written but there are many minor problems that range from punctuation, capitalization, form and grammar. I fixed many but not all. I would like to point out the following issues:

1. What is the meaning of "type" in the third and fourth paragraphs in the introduction? It doesn't make any sense. I think it should be Typhoon.

I'm not sure what's unclear about the meaning of the word, it's the aircraft type. Just a way to avoid writing the name of the type too many times. — Julian H.^✈(talk) 10:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

2. I understand aircraft is invariable. However, I personally prefer the form that ends with the s. Aircraft is used in the introduction and the Saudi Arabia section.

I don't fully understand what you mean here. "Aircraft" is used 166 times in the article, what is special about the mentions in the introduction and in the Saudi Arabia section? — Julian H.^✈(talk) 10:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

3. Who is the troubled parent of Ferranti Defence Systems? It's not clear or mentioned.

It was the Ferranti group, I have tweaked the sentence a bit but it still needs a reliable reference. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

4. Eurojet is mentioned in the upgrades section but no link is associated to it.

I think there's a rule that only the first mention of something in an article should be linked. That's the case here, the second and third aren't. — Julian H.^✈(talk) 10:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

5. The sentence "The HMSS has been delayed for many years but should be operational by the end of 2011" should be updated.

6. The word template is mentioned in the cockpit section. Yet, it's not clear what it is.

It's a pattern against which the software can match voice commands. How would you suggest to make that easier to undestand? — Julian H.^✈(talk) 10:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

7. The cockpit section talks about functions but no list or description is available.

8. In the performance section, F-14, F-15 and F-16 are not paired up with their respective manufacturers like for the Mirage or the Sukhoi.

Fixed. MilborneOne (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

9. In the radar signature reduction features section, RCS is mentioned twice in the same sentence which makes it redundant.

Fixed. — Julian H.^✈(talk) 11:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

10. In the armament section I read the sentence "P1Ea (SRP10) will enter service in 2013 Q1". This needs to be updated.

11. In the United Kingdom section I read this: "No. 2 Squadron will be the fifth Typhoon Squadron". Why does the sentence have to use fifth instead of No. 5? It lacks consistency.

To make clear that it's not the squadron No. 5 but the fifth one using the Eurofighter. That's an important difference. — Julian H.^✈(talk) 11:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

12. The second sentence in the Oman section is completely unrelated to the Typhoon and should be removed.

It isn't, as the reference at the end of the sentence explains. But you're possible right in that it should be removed because since the deal has been made, the delay is not that relevant any more. — Julian H.^✈(talk) 11:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Had a tweak and reduced the F-16 to one sentence to see how it reads, welcome to tweak or remove it you dont like it. MilborneOne (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

13. The section on Perú uses the word airframes. I don't understand what's the meaning of that word in the context.

I added a link to the corresponding article. — Julian H.^✈(talk) 10:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

14. The section on Serbia has a single sentence that keeps the reader hanging for more.

I guess that's just all that happened, but I added a second sentence clarifying that it seems like that's not going to happen (comes from the article on the Serbian Air Force). — Julian H.^✈(talk) 11:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

15. The section on India uses the word shortlisted. I assume the word is used with the meaning of removing from the list. The last sentence in the section needs to updated.

Shortlisted as in "added to the shortlist". That word appears to be in dictionaries and is used accordingly. I updated the end of the section. — Julian H.^✈(talk) 11:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

16. The section on Japan uses the word cope which is rather off and unclear in the context of the paragraph.

It's a quote, so I think it makes sense to keep it. I also think it's clear that it refers to being able to cope with the changes mentioned in the same sentence. — Julian H.^✈(talk) 11:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

17. Boelke could be really spelled Bölcke in the section on Germany.

No, that's the correct spelling in German and in English, cf. de:Taktisches Luftwaffengeschwader 31 „Boelcke“. — Julian H.^✈(talk) 11:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

18. In the accidents section, the word grounded is used twice in the final paragraph. This is rather redundant.

Why is it redundant, it refers to two different air forces? — Julian H.^✈(talk) 10:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

19. The general characteristics section has >90kN but then it uses 20,230lbf which is inconsistent.

I don't think that's inconsistent. The greater sign is placed in front of the number, the lbf-number is just a conversion for people who aren't used to SI units. I don't see how that can be misunderstood. — Julian H.^✈(talk) 10:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

20. At the end of the ferry range and absolute ceiling entries of the performance section there are two extra parentheses that I cannot remove.

In the ferry range case, that's correct since there are two opening parentheses. I'll see if I can fix the other one. — Julian H.^✈(talk) 10:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

21. Next to the armament section, the caption should really say "IRIS-T on an Eurofighter". I don't know how to fix that.

It's not on there yet. I think the current caption is accurate and informative. What do you dislike about it? — Julian H.^✈(talk) 11:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

ICE77 (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ef2000

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ef2000/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsnorway-orders-f-35a

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup on Tranche 3

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_11_06_2013_p01-02-633975.xml

Now that a Tranche 3 aircraft exists, can we have a cleanup of the various claims and predictions in the article about what will be on it and the split order settled out please? Hcobb (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Not easily, there's entry Tranche 3 and final Tranche 3 following the various PxE, in-Tranche enhancements.Z07x10 (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hardpoints

Currently the article suggest 13 hardpoints (5 fuselage and 4 on each wing), however this shows 15 (5 fuselage plus 5 on each wing - 2 inside drop tank, 2 outside it) although 2 of them are rarely used.Z07x10 (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Z07x10 (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't suggest anything, the information in the article about 13 hardpoints is based on a reliable secondary source, whereas your claim about there being 15 hardpoints is original research, since it's your personal interpretation of a picture you've found on Flickr, with no reliable sources of any kind to back it up. And it's very much your own personal interpretation of the picture, because those protrusions can be just about anything, from additions to improve airflow to chaff dispensers... Thomas.W ^talk 17:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there one single reliable written source that clearly states that the aircraft has 15 hardpoints? If so, go ahead and use it. It seems rather amazing that you might be the only person to have discovered this new "fact". It sounds like it would be quite an attractive design feature that the manufacturers would want to advertise very enthusiastically. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Eurofighter Typhoon

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Eurofighter Typhoon's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Qatar":

• From Dassault Rafale: Gallois, Dominique (30 April 2015). "Le Qatar va acheter 24 avions Rafale". Le Monde (in French). Retrieved 30 April 2015.
• From Airbus A380: "Qatar Airways confirms order for 80 A350 XWBs and adds three A380s". Airbus. Archived from the original on 22 June 2008. Retrieved 25 October 2009.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Now fixed. This thread could be deleted.Martinevans123 (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

RCS 1/4 that of Rafale

User:Fnlayson believes that [1] is a reliable source. Having never heard of the publication or writer before as experts on aviation topics I disagree. The statement relied upon on the 6th page states "According to some estimates the Rafale may appear 4 times bigger on the radar compared to the Eurofighter" without providing any references for this weasel-worded statement. I do not believe that such a statement can be relied upon for inclusion on this page. Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I did not quite say or indicate that. I added a {{vs}} (verify source) tag right after that reference so others can determine if the publication is reliable. The wording in this article clearly says it is a estimate (most RCS number generally are). I also tagged the previous sentence about the Eurofighter have an RCS better than RAF requirements. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Given that actual experimental data on the RCS of modern aircraft is probably one of the most classified things about them, you can regard ALL public discussion on relative RCS as mere opinion. Some opinions are worth more than others, sure, but it really isn't going to be possible to verify any of the figures anyway - it certainly wouldn't be out of place, in my opinion, to state something on the wiki along the lines of: "Some sources claim that the RCS of the Typhoon could be as little as 1/4 of that of the Rafale." Though without any data on the Rafale either, that hardly means anything by itself anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.244.252 (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Composites are more radar absorbent that metal and the Typhoon has a much lower metal content on its surface (higher composite. Rafale is 70% composite, Typhoon is 85% composite. I think that adds some weight to the argument to keep this note.http://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/ Also of note is the recessed BVRAAM carriage on the Typhoon, whereas the Rafale carries it's missiles on pylons, which definitely increases frontal RCS. Other features of note - the Rafale has an external IFR probe and the MWS is stuck on a plank on the tail, which definitely isn't stealthy.http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/ddm-ng_datasheet-1432732678.pdf The Typhoon's wings also have a higher sweep angle and both the tail height and canard-span are smaller. I think the evidence detailing composite percentage in surface area for the two aircraft supports the original statement, which is why I added it but Mztourist deleted it.Z07x10 (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You need to provide WP:RS rather than two statements as to composite percentages linked by your own OR Mztourist (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Heh, at least the sources I used are neutral. You linked a Rafale fan site as evidence. I linked an Indian study and information regarding composite percentage from both Eurofighter GmbH and Dassault. As regards your source, this statement is just plain wrong - "The vents for Eurofighter here offer the best technology for speed, without any consideration for any radar signature reduction" (http://www.portail-aviation.com/2013/11/dassault-rafale-vs-eurofighter-typhoon2_11.html) - as evidenced here - http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Feurofighter.airpower.at%2Ffaq.htm&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=de&ie=UTF-8 - "Signature-absorbing coating on the canards. The same coating is also found extensively on the air inlet, at the wing edges and on the vertical tail."Z07x10 (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Z07x10 look who made the edits. They were made by IP 86.69.13.240, not me, I don't sock. Stop adding back your OR on composite percentages as proof of the Typhoon's stealthiness. I am very tired of your OR such as the claim of 15 hardpoints above or your tedious change to the Typhoon's top speed. Mztourist (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Desist immediately, composites having reduced radar reflection compared to metals is not original research, it's a scientific fact supported by multiple sources:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/navy-experimenting-with-composite-superstructure-for-warships/articleshow/47056945.cms

http://www.ramboats.com/why-ram.html

http://nano.iphy.ac.cn/N04/papers/NO4_papers%20all%20pdf/HJ_Gao.0710.pdf

http://www.deccanherald.com/pages.php?id=473934

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21038610/Composite-Materials#scribd

Hell, even wikipedia itself supports this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_technologyZ07x10 (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

All I have stated is that Typhoon RCS is reduced by extensive used of composites on its surface, as stated on Eurofighter.com and then added percentages for composite usage as shown on Eurofighter.com and Dassault.http://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/

This is 100% accurate and indisputable. That composites lower RCS relative to metals is supported by multiple sources and the percentage composite usage for each aircraft is confirmed by their respective manufacturers. This is wikipedia bread and butter source usage, not WP:OR.Z07x10 (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No, you desist immediately. You are using OR yet again. You have produced two different composite percentages for Typhoon and Rafale and then linked them by saying because Typhoon has more composites it must therefore have a lower RCS, that linkage is your OR and so not acceptable. You must present a WP:RS that states that because the Typhoon has a higher % of composites than the Rafale that means that it has a lower RCS. It may be scientific fact that composites have lower RCS than metals, but this is by no means decisive. Who's to say that where the composites are used on each aircraft and their impact on RCS? Who knows how much of an impact the composites have on RCS as opposed to shielded air intakes or facetting?

How is it OR if I'm using sources and simply relaying what they say? I haven't stated that the Typhoon must have a lower RCS than the Rafale because it has a higher composite percentage, I've simply stated that composites helped reduce its RCS and given percentages for both aircraft. Entirely factual. You obviously don't understand what OR is. You are saying I've said things which I haven't. This is what I added in bold, where is the OR? According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return.[139] The Typhoon's radar return is reduced thanks in part to its surface area being 85% composite,[140] while the Rafale surface area is 70% composite.[141] Where is the OR in what I added? Source [140 - http://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft] supports everything I added before it and source [141 - http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/] supports everything after it. You've imagined I've said something which I haven't. User:Fnlayson supported my edits. Wrt RAM coating and engine shielding, both aircraft have this, if you did a little research you'd realise this. The links already there support this in fact.Z07x10 (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The OR is the link you make between the different % of composites in Typhoon compared to Rafale and your conclusion that therefore Typhoon has a lower RCS. That is OR. You are already on 3RR on this edit. I note that in your last reversion you say you agreed the wording with User:Fnlayson, where is that agreement? To spell this out in further detail for you, saying "Typhoon's surface area is 85% composite, while the Rafale surface area is 70% composite" is factual (if we accept primary sources) and not OR, but your words "Typhoon's radar return is reduced thanks in part..." is your OR and not acceptable.Mztourist (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I did not make this link, you imagined it. This is what I added in bold, where is the OR? According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return.[139] The Typhoon's radar return is reduced thanks in part to its surface area being 85% composite,[140] while the Rafale surface area is 70% composite.[141] Where is the OR in what I added? Source [140 - http://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft] supports everything I added before it and source [141 - http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/] supports everything after it. You've imagined I've said something which I haven't. User:Fnlayson agreed my edits and made only minor text/link trim adjustments.Z07x10 (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Mztourist - You have also reverted more than 3 times using sock puppet accounts. Home PC, work PC, lap-top, mobile device, proxy servers, all unsigned edits. I've had the same problem with you before.Z07x10 (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I have deliberately avoided 3RRing here, unlike you. Your claims that I have socked and that you've had the same problem with me before are preposterous. I'm reporting you for 3RR/edit warring Mztourist (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The history shows you 3RR'd first:

The history also show that you 3RR'd first: 1. (cur | prev) 12:14, 4 June 2015‎ Mztourist (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (167,591 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features) (undo | thank) 2. (cur | prev) 12:13, 4 June 2015‎ Mztourist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,597 bytes) (-252)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features: Z07x10 stop blaming me for edits I didn't do and stop adding your OR!) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 12:10, 4 June 2015‎ Z07x10 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,849 bytes) (+144)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features: Undone further bad faith non-agreed changes of Mzourist.Z07x10 (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)) (undo) 3. (cur | prev) 12:04, 4 June 2015‎ Mztourist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,705 bytes) (-258)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features: restored tag and removed OR; Z07x10 I didn't make and bad faith changes IP 86.69.13.240 did make changes while you keep trying to put in your OR, stop it!) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 11:58, 4 June 2015‎ Z07x10 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,963 bytes) (+51)‎ . . (Removed bad faith changes of Mzourist - biased source with grossly inaccurate information. Returned to changes previously agreed.Z07x10 (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)) (undo) (cur | prev) 09:30, 4 June 2015‎ 86.69.13.240 (talk)‎ . . (167,912 bytes) (+22)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features) (undo) (cur | prev) 09:20, 4 June 2015‎ 86.69.13.240 (talk)‎ . . (167,890 bytes) (+147)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features) (undo) LOL 4. (cur | prev) 16:57, 30 May 2015‎ Mztourist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,743 bytes) (-220)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features: restored tags and removed OR based on percentages of composite usage) (undo | thank)Z07x10 (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish. You can discuss it at ANI Mztourist (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Have done. You actually made a total of 6 reverts, breaking the 3RR twice over before accusing me. Despite waiting 24 hours it's still a breach and edit warring in principle. You made 2 reverts before Fnlayson's text trimming agreement and 4 thereafter. Well done, you just nailed yourself.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Z07x10_reported_by_User:Mztourist_.28Result:_.29 There is no immunity for reporters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_shoot_yourself_in_the_footZ07x10 (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I am the one who made these edits, not Z07x10. As I said in my edit comment, the ICPS study seems severely biased against Rafale, contains some inaccurate data and does not cite their source. It is not safe to assume that Rafale has 4 times bigger RCS than Typhoon ; that would mean EF has a RCS of less than 0,05m², which is a fairy tale. Objectively, Rafale features more RCS reduction measures by design than what the EF does (Rafale has a greater RAM coating fuselage, fixed air intakes (this is crucial ! Remember this is one of the key point of the low RCS of B-1B), serrated edges (completely absent on Typhoon)). Composite % is far from being the only parameter - remember that 1) composite is not fully radar transparent either 2) what is under the composite airframe (wiring, etc..) is even less radar transparent. Airframe design and shape are a much more prominent parameter. .86.69.13.240 (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually it isn't a fairy tale and this further source supports such an RCS for the Eurofighter. It says that a similar radar which detects an F-35 at 59km can detect a Eurofighter at 120km. A factor of two on range by the radar range formula gives a factor of 16 on RCS, which does indeed put the Eurofighter in this RCS ballpark by equation 14 in second link.

1. [2]
2. [3]

I will add these sources but leave the 'verification needed' tag in place to avoid upset.

Yeah, the rest of your comment is full of unsupported assumptions too. The ramp on the Typhoon intake is fixed geometry. Your assertion of greater RAM coating is unsupported and crucially the Rafale's surface area contains twice as much metal, which reflects radar much better than composites. Crucially the intake is also composite on the Typhoon but aluminium on the Rafale.

1. [4]
2. [5]

http://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/Z07x10 (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore the Rafale has a wider canard span, external IFR probe and taller tail with an extremely unstealthy plank-like feature on it.http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/ddm-ng_datasheet-1432732678.pdf

The Typhoon also has semi-recessed storage for 4 BVRAAMs whereas the Rafale's BVRAAM must be mounted on pylons, which is again very unstealthy. As for serrated edges - the F-22 doesn't have them on the intakes either, and it also uses fixed geometry ramps, myth busted.http://www.kbvp.com/sites/default/files/images/F22%20front%20view%20tight.preview.jpg

This link also discusses how the Typhoon's radar is fundamentally stealthier than the Rafale's radar due to being tiltable (page 20-21).http://www.docdroid.net/12ngk/eurofighter-world-feb-15.pdf.htmlZ07x10 (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Z07x10 you have been on Wikipedia long enough to know that OR such as the WP:SYNTH that you are using with your multi RS/non-RS references to try to back up the claim that the Typhoon has RCS 1/4 that of Rafale is unacceptable. You have been warned for edit warring this point already, several other users other than myself have taken issue with your changes to this page over the last few days and if your behaviour doesn't change you will be at ANI again very quickly. Mztourist (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed the synthesis from my original edit as requested by Thomas W., what's left are just supporting sources. Note I say 'supporting sources' not verification, which is why I left the 'verification needed' tag. The sources are perfectly reliable. Only the manufacturers of each aircraft know the composite percentages, what other source could they possibly come from, since no one else would know without first getting the information from the manufacturer. The other source is a secondary source, where's the problem? I'm happy for you to add this to the DRN discussion also.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon#RCS_1.2F4_that_of_RafaleZ07x10 (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You continue to try to argue the same point you edit-warred previously. Your "supporting sources" are a mix of RS and non RS linked by your Synth. You are just adding a lot of spurious information because you can't find a reliable source that clearly supports the claim.

I request all interested Users to form a consensus on whether or not this is acceptable, for me obviously I Oppose Mztourist (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not the same as my previous edit because I have left the verification tag in situ and also given text comparison between composite percentages in the same paragraph. Note previous edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665467470&oldid=665464629

Current edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665778918&oldid=665778690Z07x10 (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You really don't seem to understand WP:SYNTH because you persist in doing it. In any event http://www.radartutorial.eu/ is a self-published blog and so not WP:RS, while Eurofighter world is a marketing magazine produced by Eurofighter and so a primary source and any statements contained there are questionable. Mztourist (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay I looked it up. I have now broken it out into individually sourced sentences of completely supported facts to comply with 3rd example on the wiki OR/synthesis page, which is marked as correct:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material

As regards the radartutorial site it contains text book material and is written by a radar specialist called Christian Wolff who owns a company that produces radar systems and radar components in the 1-25GHz range, so as sources go, it's as good as it gets.

http://www.radartutorial.eu/html/author.de.html

Primary sources are not prohibited by wikipedia and in certain cases they are the only way of obtaining the information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sourcesZ07x10 (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding http://www.radartutorial.eu/html/author.de.html, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources, which states "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" so unless you can back up his blog with evidence that he is "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", its not RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

His work is published in books:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89626942/Radar-Tutorial#scribd

http://www.radartutorial.eu/druck/Book3.pdf

http://www.radartutorial.eu/druck/Book2.pdf

And referred to by other published sources

http://tapchi.vnu.edu.vn/upload/2015/01/1546/5.pdf

http://www.richardsonrfpd.com/resources/RellDocuments/SYS_28/Richardson-RFPD_Basic-Principles-of-Radar.pdf

::::::Not to mention the fact that the radar equation on that page is a well established mathematical fact published on wikipedia already, which you would have found out very easily if you'd taken a little time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar#Radar_equation

I have now added this source as verification of original but frankly a quick google would readily turn up this equation on multiple sites dealing with radars and you would find it in any radar text book.Z07x10 (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. I cannot open the 1st site, the 2nd and 3rd are just links back to the radar tutorial site, the 4th site refers to two publications written by the radar tutorial site owner, it is not clear who published them, while the 5th is just an abbreviation of an extract from the radar tutorial site. These do not meet the criteria that the radar tutorial site owner is "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". If the radar equation is indeed "a well established mathematical fact" as you say you should have no difficulty in finding WP:RS for it, rather than continuing to push dubious sources. Mztourist (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Page 2.6:

http://www.dsp-book.narod.ru/skolnik/7913X_02a.pdf taken from http://www.amazon.com/Radar-Handbook-Third-Merrill-Skolnik/dp/0071485473/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1433666995&sr=8-1&keywords=radar+handbook author also wrote http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&field-author=Merrill+Skolnik&search-alias=books&text=Merrill+Skolnik&sort=relevancerank

http://uk.mathworks.com/help/phased/ug/radar-equation.html#btdelm7

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/courses/details/EDP306

http://ece.wpi.edu/radarcourse/Radar%202010%20PDFs/Radar%202009%20A%20_4%20Radar%20Equation.pdf

http://www.ece.uah.edu/courses/material/EE619-2011/RadarRangeEquation(2)2011.pdf

http://copradar.com/rdrrange/

http://www.everything2.com/title/Radar+Range+Equation

Now tell me the IEEE, Matlab and The University of Alabama are wrong too. Are any of these sources good enough?Z07x10 (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

So all of these are new sources rather than further attempts to justify the use of the radar tutorial site? You only need to provide one RS, the University of Alabama is a RS and so if you can indicate where in the paper is the calculation you are relying on and give a proper citation that will be acceptable. Mztourist (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Page 14, Equation 2-35:

http://www.ece.uah.edu/courses/material/EE619-2011/RadarRangeEquation(2)2011.pdf

I'll insert this and remove the radar tutorial link.Z07x10 (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Rafale

Trying to understand the issues in recent disputes, we seem to be comparing the Typhoon with the Rafale, as we dont normally compare aircraft in these articles can anybody explain why we need the paragraph "According to the RAF.." and why it cant just be removed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

A very good point. I can't really see the justification for it either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to see it deleted. Mztourist (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It should further be noted that the source being cited for the comparison [6] is being misrepresented - it actually reads "According to some estimates the Rafale may appear 4 times bigger on the radar compared to the Eurofighter." 'May appear.' A vague assertion rather than a specific statement about radar cross sections. Nothing to do with the RAF either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Simply replace with a more detailed description of operators. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

And incidentally, the statement that "According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements" is unsourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Yup, kill it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

They are both reliable sources. I have removed the bit about RAF requirements already. It was correct but can't be sourced. Globalsecurity.org and ipcs.org are used over 500 times each in wikipedia and have very good credentials.http://www.ipcs.org/about-us/ , http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/overview/praise.htm. Comparisons are not new in fighter articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-15 , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_F-86_Sabre and are inline with policy. Obviously AndyTheGrump the size of return from a aircraft is proportional to RCS - that is established fact therefore not OR/synthesis. The sources after the 'Detection Range' sentence point this out - a good reason for keeping the paragraph, you read it and learn something.Z07x10 (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Aside from that the paragraph contains some good sources and information about composite percentages and the Typhoon radar wrt RCS.Z07x10 (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidently WP:RS is another policy you have difficulty understanding. There is no such thing as an abstract 'reliable source' - it always depends on what a source is being cited for. And no, we don't cite a sources own opinion of itself as evidence of reliability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Z07x10, are you here to build an encyclopedia by means of consensus or just to continually battle for your own view of how things should be? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm here to build an encyclopedia based on wikipedia policy. There are two sources stating that the Typhoon has a lower RCS, ipcs.org and globalsecurity.org (in two separate articles). These sources are each used over 500 times in wikipedia already. I can't find a single reliable neutral source that states a counter opinion.

http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/SR126-NSP-IndiaandtheRafale.pdf

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm

A further source compares it to the F-35 wrt detection range, which is proportional to the 4th root of RCS. This can be back calculated to a figure much lower than the Rafale (i.e. 2^4 ~ 16 times F-35 RCS) using the radar equation and estimates of the F-35 frontal RCS. I think the point is very well sourced overall. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/10/205_97236.html http://www.dsp-book.narod.ru/skolnik/7913X_02a.pdfZ07x10 (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the reliability of the sources being cited, it should be noted that the ipcs source states that "According to some estimates the Rafale may appear 4 times bigger on the radar compared to the Eurofighter", whereas globalsecurity.org gives a figure of 1 m² for the Rafale, and 0.5 m² for the Typhoon. [7] I think we can thus safely conclude at that at least one of them must be wrong. Though frankly, if the figure globalsecurity.org gives for the F-35 (0.005 m²) is correct (which is of course open to question, along with the other data), I suspect that our readers might think we were comparing the Typhoon with the wrong aircraft, or at least omitting a comparison which may be seen as more significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

RCS varies depending on aspect angle and the ratio of frontal RCS will be different to the ratio of all aspect RCS, or an average covering a given arc. I suspect the globalsecurity.org figure covers a frontal arc and the ipcs.org figure covers only a head-on frontal aspect but that is only opinion. The globalsecurity.org figures are actually an accumulation of different aspects for different aircraft, which is why there are 3 given for the B-2. I am happy to change the wording to 2-4 times as opposed to 4 and give both sources in the interests on neutrality if we can agree on that. The ratio wrt the F-35 varies with angles, the koreatimes source leads to a lower ratio of ~16 times but yes, from some angles it may be 100 times the F-35 RCS. We could include a statement to that affect too.Z07x10 (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's appropriate to add anything based on your suspicions. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus, me, AndyTheGrump, Martinevans123, Dbrodbeck , HLGallon and McSly all oppose the inclusion of the paragraph, but Z07x10 continues to forum-shop and wikilawyer to try to 'win' Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I resent that allegation coming from a person who alleged OR, which was then ruled against by Robert McClenon because the alleged synthesised point was already mentioned in the first source, which you didn't read. I recommend that both you and Andy read more and write less. That way, you may one day have an informed opinion on something rather than just an opinion.Z07x10 (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert McLenon hasn't 'ruled against' anything. His participation as a voluntary DRN moderator gives him no authority to make rulings, and he has at no time suggested that he has any such authority - I suggest you stop misrepresenting what he says. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Funny, you are the one who writes these vast tracts that people can't be bothered reading. As I have said to you before, drop the stick and devote your energy to creating non-contentious content rather than picking fights Mztourist (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the RFM here, because the last one didn't get processed by the Bot.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Eurofighter_Typhoon_2Z07x10 (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

z07x10... it might help if you could you explain why you think this article needs to include the comparison in the first place. The vast majority of our aircraft articles don't contain comparisons to other aircraft... so why should this article be different? Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 and North American F-86 Sabre articles include comparisons and I think it should be included simply because the information exists in reliable sources and more information makes for a better encyclopedia. Both aircraft were developed in the same time frame in Europe and therefore the comparison is an interesting and relevant one given the history of the EFA party split.Z07x10 (talk) 07:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed RFC: Inclusion of Radar Cross-Section Comparison

Is there a policy-based reason for excluding the following content from the article:

Some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be 2-4 times greater than the Eurofighter's return depending on aspect. Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes, whereas the Rafale's surface area is 70% composite and it has metallic intakes. The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection, whereas some aircraft with smaller fixed radar have them vertically mounted yielding a larger radar return. An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar, with detection range being proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section. Other sources put the Typhoon's radar cross-section at up to 100 times that of the F-35's depending on the aspect examined.

References

Include your !votes in the Survey section with brief statements as to reason. Do not include threaded discussion in the Survey section, but instead in the Threaded Discussion section.

Survey

FWIW, content looks fine to me, but then I did write it.Z07x10 (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Since this isn't an RfC, responses here are going to achieve precisely nothing, other than confusing the issue. We need to sort the wording out first, and then ask for input. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Can I ask why Robert McClenon thinks it remotely appropriate to start another thread on the proposed wording for the RfC, when we already have one? What exactly is this supposed to achieve beyond extending this seemingly-unending debate even longer? This is not an RfC (see [8]), and cannot be changed into one half way through - that is not only contrary to process, but more or less guaranteed to lead to more time-wasting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Since this isn't an RfC, I suggest it be summarily closed as out of process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't see why it can't be, the wording looks pretty neutral although I felt an RFM would be better. Once you start adding opinions and points to the question then it's difficult to make it neutral, so let's just leave it as it is and let people decide if the content is out of whack with policy or not. Z07x10 (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested adding 'opinions' to the question. And if you are going to edit your proposed text, [9] please at least inform us of the fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You have eyes.Z07x10 (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I do. Eyes which can see several obvious problems with your proposed content, regardless of whether it merits inclusion or not. But since you are happy with it, I'll leave such comments until the RfC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

One thing I will however mention now is that you are citing content uploaded to Photobucket. Which shouldn't even be linked on a talk page - we have no way of knowing whether the copyright holder has authorised it (it appears to have been uploaded by a 'sigmafour1'), and neither do we have any way of verifying it as authentic. I seem to recall pointing this out before, and am surprised it hasn't been sorted out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump the proposed RFC language looks fine and Z07x10 shouldn't make any futher changes to the contentious paragraph while this is subject to RFC review. Mztourist (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm entitled to make whatever changes I like to improve the paragraph, e.g. avoiding alleged copyright violations that nobody actually cares about in this case.Z07x10 (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

He is going to have to do something about citing an apparent copyright violation. It is totally contrary to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The photobucket image is from the Tech Guide, I'll link that instead.Z07x10 (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

|}

I intend to start an RfC on the RCS issue, and allow the community to decide the matter.

As I have made clear at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Eurofighter Typhoon 2, I do not think mediation is necessary when normal community processes for resolution have not been attempted, and accordingly I will (unless specifically instructed not to by someone in a position to do so) be starting an RfC on the issue. In the interests of fairness, it is clearly appropriate to discuss the precise wording of the RfC first. Accordingly, I ask Z07x10 (or anyone else supporting the section on RCS) to first provide an updated version of the proposed wording, if it is felt that it needs revision in the light of new sources. I see no reason why the wording of the RfC itself need be more complex than a simple "Should the following text on comparative radar cross sections be included in the article?", but if anyone has an alternative suggestion, please do so.

I would ask that people please stay on topic here, and confine discussion strictly to the proposed wording of the RfC - other issues can be discussed in appropriate threads. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I support this approach Mztourist (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought we did have a consenus above not to include the section with only Z07 wanting it to be added, but if you ignore that consensus and think we need an RFC than how about something like Should an exception be made in the "Radar signature reduction features" section to discuss the RCS of the Rafale or F-35 which have no relevance to Typhoon design features. MilborneOne (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Struck suggestion as I believe we already have a consensus to remove the section. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC questions are supposed to be neutrally worded. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with MilborneOne. Especially since 1) we usually don't do aircraft to aircraft comparison 2) the sources don't seem to be reliable for the claims and 3) the rest is OR/Synth. --McSly (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The synthesis allegation has already been rejected by User: Robert McClenon because the first source states composite percentage as a reason for the RCS difference, therefore I'm not synthesising that point.Z07x10 (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree with MilborneOne that this would be a simple matter of consensus. But I feel an RfC, as suggested by AndyTheGrump, may be required to examine very thoroughly Z07x10's view that Wikipedia policy supports his position, as he so vehemently claims. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't support this approach because there is already an RFM in play and participants should either settle the matter there or drop their case.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Eurofighter_Typhoon_2 Why have you refused to do so User:AndyTheGrump?Z07x10 (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Mediation looks certain to be rejected. Are you going to propose new wording for the text on RCS, or do you want me to go ahead with the existing wording? That is the only reply needed here, as this RfC is going to happen, with or without your participation, and if you don't propose alternate wording, I will have to assume you are still supporting the existing material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Because we want a binding decision to end this discussion Mztourist (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You know, if this would settle this whole mess once and for all I would be fine with it. While there is pretty clear consensus not to include the material I am fine with an RFC. An RFC worded as suggested by Andy is fine by me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

An RFM gives a binding decision as I understand it. A consensus is subject to change and challenge with time.Z07x10 (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

We now have to wait for all the three late-comers at the RfM to "accept" or it will be declined. But we may have to wait until 10.37 on 22 June before a decision is taken. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

One has declined, so the RfM will no longer be accepted. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Types of Consensus

I agree as to an RFC. On the one hand, there is a consensus among the currently involved editors that we don't need the section comparing the RCS of the Eurofighter to that of the Rafale, with only Z07x10 disagreeing. On the other hand, an RFC can be publicized at the appropriate Wikiprojects, including the very active Military History project, and is also randomly publicized by Legobot, and would get a larger consensus. It would really be quite useful to get this consensus, because this issue has been going on for at least a year and a half. I would like to see the wording of the RFC before the bot tag is put on the RFC, so that we can review whether the wording is neutral. (A non-neutrally worded RFC is worse than useless, and many RFCs are non-neutrally worded are are useless or harmful.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Z07x10 doesn't support the RFC approach, saying that the RFM is already in play, and participants should either settle the matter there or drop their case. That itself appears to be a very non-neutrally worded statement. It appears to mean that participants should either agree with him and the mediator to include the RFC language or should drop their opposition to the language. The RFM will probably be declined, because no one except Z07X10 has agreed to mediation. In any case, I really have no idea why he thinks that mediation is the next step. Does he really think that, when light-weight moderated discussion at WP:DRN did not result in compromise, formal mediation will result in compromise? Is there anything to compromise? Either the language should be included, or the language should be excluded. Does Z07x10 really think that mediation will result in a decision to force the comparison language in? I really do not understand what Z07x10 expects to be gained by mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Some editors oppose an RFC because they think that there is already a consensus against the language. I agree that there is already a consensus against the language, but an RFC would be a larger consensus. We need to put this matter to rest, because Z07x10 doesn't want to let it drop, and has been going on about this matter for more than a year. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't usually do aircraft-to-aircraft comparison, but there isn't a policy or guideline that says that we don't do aircraft-to-aircraft comparison. That is why not to refer to an exception, and just ask whether to include the comparison language. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to propose alternate wording for the RfC, please do so - I have already made specific a proposal ("Should the following text on comparative radar cross sections be included in the article?"). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That statement of the question is good, but of course needs to be followed by the paragraph that Z07X10 has tried to include in the past. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert we probably need to make this a military/science question but I don't agree with the RFC process because consensus will only get challenged at a later date.Z07x10 (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why you don't agree with the RFC process. Who, other than you, will challenge the consensus? You have been challenging the consensus against including the comparison for eighteen months. Do you just want to continue to argue, rather than to resolve it? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read my proposal above, you would have seen that I proposed to do exactly that. Though I would have thought that the words 'following text' would have made this obvious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

An RFM considers policy as well a head count, that is why I want it.Z07x10 (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is new wording proposed, I have used 2 sources to give a wider indication of different views on RCS, mods in bold. I think that gives a fair and balanced account using different sources.

Sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be 2-4 times greater than the Eurofighter's return depending on aspect. Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes, whereas the Rafale's surface area is 70% composite and it has metallic intakes. The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection, whereas some aircraft with smaller fixed radar have them vertically mounted yielding a larger radar return.An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar, with detection range being proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section. Other sources put the Typhoon's radar cross-section at up to 100 times that of the F-35's depending on the aspect examined.

Those with issues should list them specifically. I believe the OR/synthesis issue is dead as agreed by Robert on the NORN board. Reliability of sources - ipcs.org and globalsecurity.org are used thousands of times in wikipedia for military material. Two sources and two comparisons included for neutrality purposes. So I believe the only remaining issues is whether we do comparisons.Z07x10 (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The issue is indeed whether to include the comparison paragraph. There are multiple reasons why some editors don't want the paragraph. I didn't rule on synthesis; I only offered an opinion, and other editors may disagree. Some editors still have issues with sources, and some with undue weight or NPOV. The issue is indeed whether to include the comparison paragraph, and an RFC is a way to decide that. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

So maybe the first RfC we need is to decide do we need any comparison at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

How can that last source possibly support the final sentence? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

References

My bad, I added the wrong source, fixed.Z07x10 (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Going Forward

I have created a section of this talk page called RFC, but have not included the actual proposed paragraph. It isn't a real RFC yet because I haven't added the bot tag to it. When we have agreement that the RFC is neutrally worded on inclusion of the comparison paragraph, I will add the bot tag, and it will become a real RFC. That is how we can go forward. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

A complete waste of time. You can't start a sort-of-RfC then change it half way through. Which is why I asked that we sort the wording out first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

No. You can't change an RFC after the bot tag is applied. That is why we are working out the wording here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Then work out the wording in the thread I have already created for the purpose (i.e. this one). Don't start a misleadingly-named sort-of-half-RfC on the underlying question. You cannot change the wording half way through without turning the whole procedure into a complete farce. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Are we in agreement on the wording? If anyone wants, I can strike through the draft and create a new final version. Was there an alternate proposal to include an RFC on whether to have comparisons at all? If so, we can run both. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There still hasn't been an explanation from User:Z07x10 as to what they think will be accomplished by mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is any need for a separate 'do we have comparisons at all' RfC - the question can clearly be tweaked to say "...the following text or similar" or something like that. As far as I'm aware, nobody has proposed alternate text, and the general consensus seems to be that we don't want comparisons of the Eurofighter/Rafale RCS in the article at all. As for proposed wording, I'm personally not keen on asking if there is "a policy-based reason to exclude" the material - it seems to be leading the responder. A simple "should we include..." question implies nothing about policy either way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The reason that he was changing it to asking whether there was a policy-based reason was to make it difficult to exclude. In the process of altering the RFC, that reversed all of the !votes and is a textbook case of why RFCs should not be altered after publication. I think that the prononent takes the novel view that a paragraph should not be excluded unless there is consensus on a specific policy that prevents it. That is, undue weight, for instance, which is a judgment call, won't do. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon I'm trying to avoid a case of WP:I just don't like it by going to RFM. I think it's important that complainants should have a policy-based reason as to why the content is wrong, rather than just opinion. I'm yet to see any sound policy-based reason against it.Z07x10 (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple policy reasons against the inclusion of the paragraph. You appear to be taking a novel view that the exclusion of a paragraph requires a consensus on a specific policy basis for exclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft language has been replaced with actual RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Inclusion of Radar Cross-Section Comparison The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Should the following text be included in the article? Some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be 2-4 times greater than the Eurofighter's return depending on aspect. Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes, whereas the Rafale's surface area is 70% composite and it has metallic intakes. The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection, whereas some aircraft with smaller fixed radar have them vertically mounted yielding a larger radar return. An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar, with detection range being proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section. Other sources put the Typhoon's radar cross-section at up to 100 times that of the F-35's depending on the aspect examined. Include your !votes in the Survey section with brief statements as to reason. Do not include threaded discussion in the Survey section, but instead in the Threaded Discussion section. Survey Support - all sources look reliable and are well used in Wikipedia and make the points outlined in the text.Z07x10 (talk) 08:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Oppose for multiple reasons as detailed below: 1. Not based on a WP:RS: If you read the source [10] it is clearly a poorly-researched and referenced hatchet job on the Rafale, which is why it was tagged back in February. The paragraph relied on states that: "While most of the Eurofighter is made up of composites, the Rafale in addition to having a fundamentally unstealthy curvaceous layout is also overwhelmingly metal, making it much more visible to radars. According to some estimates the Rafale may appear 4 times bigger on the radar compared to the Eurofighter. While both fighters lose their masking abilities if fully loaded up with external munitions, the Eurofighter at least has the ability to carry 4 semi-conformal BVRAAMs i.e. a well armed air defence or interception patrol, which is reasonably invisible." The first sentence assumes that as the Eurofighter Typhoon is constructed of more composites than the Rafale it is therefore stealthier, yet the later sources cited that show that the Typhoon is 85% composite while the Rafale is 70% composite, so saying that the Typhoon is mostly composites while the Rafale is "overwhelmingly metal" is clearly wrong. The writer of the article ignores all other aspects of stealth which are widely known and ironically also refers to the Rafale's "curvaceous layout" ignoring that this may be "continous curvature" as used on the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit#Radar. The second sentence is equally problematic, none of the "estimates" are cited and "may appear" is weasel wording. The final sentence makes it clear that both aircraft lose whatever steathiness they have when carrying munitions, it is well established that external storage leads to higher radar returns, but there is no mention of this in this paragraph. If there were reliable sources saying clearly that "the Eurofighter Typhoon is stealthier than the Rafale' but not as stealthy as the F-35" then I would not be oppoosed to some variation of this paragraph staying in but no such WP:RS for the Typhoon:Rafale comparison have been presented. Mztourist (talk) 1.Source reliability - There are two sources supporting the Rafale-Typhoon RCS comparison, both are used a thousand times on wikipedia and are very highly regarded. Globalsecurity.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=globalsecurity.org&go=Go http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/overview/history.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/overview/praise.htm IPCS.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=ipcs.org&go=Go http://www.ipcs.org/about-us/ 2. "Overwhelming metal" - The Rafale is overwhelmingly metal, but its surface area is not, but does still contain a higher proportion of metal as pointed out by the following sentences.Z07x10 (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC) 2. Its OR/Synth: To analyse the contentious paragraph: "Some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be 2-4 times greater than the Eurofighter's return depending on aspect This was the original wording from February that all later edits seek to support. Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes, whereas the Rafale's surface area is 70% composite and it has metallic intakes. This side by side comparison of primary source information is Synth when read following the previous sentence. i.e the unspoken assertion is that Typhoon is steathier because it has a higher % of composites, while completely ignoring numerous other aspects that contribute the stealth. Mztourist (talk) The first source states composite percentages as a reason for the RCS difference.http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/SR126-NSP-IndiaandtheRafale.pdf Therefore it can'tbe OR. You already lost this case on the OR noticeboard before your fishing expedition began.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#A_Summary.2C_and_Thoughts_to_Go_ForwardZ07x10 (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Interpreting: "a reason for" doesn't equate to "the reasons for".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC) The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection, whereas some aircraft with smaller fixed radar have them vertically mounted yielding a larger radar return. This is another attempted comparison between the Typhoon and the Rafale (which does have a vertically mounted radar). Mztourist (talk) So you admit it's accurate? So where's the problem?Z07x10 (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC) I have no idea what either of you are on about this time. But the details about the Typhoon appear to clearly be relevant, whether comparison is or not. An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar, with detection range being proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section. Other sources put the Typhoon's radar cross-section at up to 100 times that of the F-35's depending on the aspect examined. I'm really not sure what this is trying to say as it is comparing the Typhoon against a completely different, stealthier aircraft.Mztourist (talk) It says exactly what it says??? You haven't even made a point here??Z07x10 (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Interpreting: M is questioning the relevance.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC) In my view all of the above amounts to Synth to support a claim made in a questionable source. No information is presented that could support the contrary position such as that the Rafale's engine intakes conceal the engine face more effectively than the Typhoon. 3. Comparison of aircraft: there is a dearth of WP:RS on the issue of relative stealthiness of the Typhoon compared to the Rafale which is why the Indian article above and the OR/Synth are used. Comparison between aircraft on a page is unusual except where they met in combat such as the F-86 and MiG-15 and so the relative performance and success of the two is relevant for inclusion on both pages.Mztourist (talk) And the Typhoon and Rafale were developed by 2 rival manufacturers in the same time period following a split during the EFA project, hence this comparison is of interest too.Z07x10 (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC) 4. There is an existing consensus of Users who oppose the inclusion of this paragraph and have already discussed it at OR, RS and DRN pages. Mztourist (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC) The 'vote' has failed to respect policy and is hence just a vote and not a consensus.WP:Consensus The current vote is based on WP:I don't like it and has failed to argue any policy basis for its objection. It has also failed to consider any value in the wealth of content presented in this paragraph. Z07x10 (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Oppose, and something like a mediation attempt: There's enough WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT doubt to leave this out at least until more conclusive sourcing can be found. I've gone over some of the past history, and I'm not as certain as McClendon was that there's no WP:SYNTH happening here, but I also think some of the SYNTH claims aren't too well supported. The very fact that it's hard to tell is reasonable doubt, I think. It should be pretty clear that SYNTH is not happening, or SYNTH is liable to be happening, as it were. The fact that some details can be sourced doesn't guarantee inclusion. I agree with Z07x10 that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to WP:FILIBUSTER against edits. I don't believe in WP:BRD, and editors should not be pilloried for being bold if they have sources. But that's not happening here. I see plenty of policy-based, source-related, or common-sense arguments against the inclusion. I also see patent tendentiousness and WP:IDHT on Z07x10 part. In fairness, some of the other editors involved in this haven't been models of WP:Civility, and may be bordering on WP:TE, too. Everyone needs to take a step back. Regarding SYNTH, I have to note that 'ignoring that this may be "continous curvature" as used on the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit#Radar' (underlining added) is also synth. It's forgivable since it's not in the article, but it's not a good rationale to bring, really, in a case the opposition is basing (perhaps too much) on SYNTH claims. The key issue in the long noticeboard discussion is that there are multiple non-WP:AADD reasons to not include this passage. I have about zero interest in topics like this, so I have no side to pick or whatever. Having been frequently previously subjected to WP:FACTIONs and WP:TAGTEAMs revertwarring me without real rationales in actual patterns that are like what Z07x10 thinks is happening, I'm naturally inclined to not dismiss his claims out of hand (despite his WP:FORUMshopping). But it's just not there. This is not a WP:CABAL. Its several editors just not agreeing with Z07x10 that this combined set of sourced "facts", assembled that way into kind of a house of cards paragraph, is encyclopedic material. That is enough to form consensus to not add the material. Even if there's bad blood and some personal animosity is involved. My suggestion at this point would be to drop, at least for now, the radar signature comparison plan and just look at the assemblage of facts. Which ones have not had the reliability of their sources questioned? Of those (there seem to be many), which, as stand-alone facts, are relevant to the article? Try adding in a few of those without trying to build a picture out of it. Don't juxtapose them in a way that leads the reader to conclusions not drawn by any of the sources. That's sufficient, until better source material is found. It is not crucial for our readers to have this comparison info, especially if it's not certain to be properly sourced. It's difficult to tell if the sourcing complaints, etc. are valid or not, because you guys have been yelling at each other for a long time in a circular manner. Pick one thing to work through at time.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Question: Mztourist, if a couple of sources and claims are dropped can a less "reaching" paragraph be constructed that won't trigger reverts? Many of these sources appear to be sound, and at least several of the facts appear relevant, even if the comparison to one specific other aircraft may not be.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Oppose per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to come to these conclusions. Plus, with RCS, everything is dependent upn aspect. Why these specific aircraft comparisons? Why single out the Rafale, and not the Falcon, or Eagle, Mirage III, SU-27...? A pointless comparison, unless someone is trying to boost sales or promote one over the other. Scr★pIronIV 14:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Oppose The material is poorly-sourced, at least marginally synthesis, and undue. It should be noted that only one of the sources actually directly discusses a comparison between the Eurofighter and Rafale RCSs - a clearly-partisan piece written in the context of a dispute over an Indian contract for military aircraft. Most of the remaining content is merely cobbled together in a manner clearly intended to present the supposed merits of one aircraft over the other. Several of the sources cited appear not to be remotely RS (material uploaded to Photobook - which probably shouldn't be linked at all as a possible copyright violation - along with an unsourced graphic uploaded to Commons) No source states that the Eurofighter has a radar cross section "2-4 greater than" that of the Rafale. Instead, one source (the partisan Indian one) says that "According to some estimates the Rafale may appear 4 times bigger on the radar compared to the Eurofighter" whereas the globalsecurity.org data (derived from an article which says nothing else about either aircraft) gives the Rafale RCS as 1 m2, and the Eurofighter as 0.5 m2 - the sources simply don't agree, and it is misleading to suggest that they do. Frankly though, I see no particular reason to accept either source as reliable for these figures. Along with many other performence figures, radar reflectivity data for these aircraft is almost certainly classified data - it is certainly not present in any officially-released publications - and in any case is a far more complex issue than a simple number, depending as it does on aircraft aspect, radar frequency, and external load. Basing an article section on over-simplified figures from arguably-questionable sources which don't agree would be undue to start with, and when combined with a ragbag collection of data clearly intended to argue a case for one aircraft over the other gives every appearance of being POV-pushing. Poorly-sourced and over-simplified debates regarding the relative merits of aircraft X over aircraft Y may be the staple stuff of military aircraft enthusists' forums, but they don't belong in Wikipedia articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Oppose I see no real reason for this to be in the article, it is WP:UNDUE and unecyclopedic. To quote above 'Poorly-sourced and over-simplified debates regarding the relative merits of aircraft X over aircraft Y may be the staple stuff of military aircraft enthusists' forums, but they don't belong in Wikipedia articles.' Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Oppose. Poorly sourced, unencyclopaedic and to a large part WP:Synth/WP:OR fancruft. Thomas.W talk 16:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Oppose. It's not yet been agreed that any comparison, in an article such as this, is required. If there is one single instance of such a comparison in another similar article, I might re-consider. The basis for this particular addition seems to be unreliable second-hand reporting of rival speculative export bids from two competing manufacturers. The only reliable data, if any exists, is likely to be commercially sensitive and to be Classified information, i.e. wholly unreportable in the public domain. The rest of the proposal is a mixture of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. There are too many variables here for anyone to be able to usefully summarise in a few short sentences of prose. What an immense waste of time and effort this whole debate has been - just like the one about max speed was last year. What a strange coincidence. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Oppose. For all the reasons already mentioned by everybody in the past weeks. Poor sources, OR/Synth, we usually don't do aircraft to aircraft comparison. --McSly (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Oppose per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR as per reasons above. Let's hope we don't go through a similar discussion for other factors that affect Radar cross-section like those zig-zags on the Rafale training edges... Davidelit (Talk) 03:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC) User:Z07x10 has been site-banned, as he was the only proponent of this paragraph and a clear consensus against its inclusion exists per above, I think the RFC can be closed, I have deleted the paragraph already, thank you all for your input Mztourist (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC) Threaded discussion I broadly respect the consensus, however a lot of people have mentioned OR/SYNTH. Perhaps they wouldn't mind stating what the synthesised point not in the sources actually is. The reason I ask is because I'm absolutely sure there isn't one and given the length and history of this debate, someone would have mentioned it by now if there were.Z07x10 (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Whilst the reliability of the sources is question, IPCS liaise with the Indian military who recently assessed both aircraft.http://www.ipcs.org/about-us/ There are also other accurate ways of estimating RCS.http://www.roke.co.uk/resources/datasheets/01331-Epsilon.pdf Global security is also very highly rated and generally dislike wikipedia as a source themselves.http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/overview/history.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/overview/praise.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/subscribe/wiki.htm The reason for the discrepancy between sources is that RCS varies depending on aspect and whether a frontal, average, weighted average or partial average is used in the assessment. I suspect the global security figure is a partial average for the Typhoon and Rafale.Z07x10 (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC) I didn't just compare it to one aircraft, I compared it to two, one less stealthy and one more stealthy for the purposes of NPOV. I would be happy to accept counterpoints from reliable independent sources. In fact, I'd have included them myself if there were any.Z07x10 (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Refs References The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Bronk report http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-05/eurofighter-needs-upgrades-to-exploit-15-year-gap-to-f-35-jet The Eurofighter GmbH warplane will remain a key element of western defenses beyond 2030 only if governments commit to costly capability upgrades, according to a report sponsored by the pan-national manufacturer. I'm abstaining from adding this as I count Bronk as a friend. Hcobb (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC) the page already states: "In July 2012, UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond suggested that a follow-on buy of F-35A aircraft would be determined by the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) in 2015, with the aim of replacing the UK's Typhoons around 2030. The UK is to decide what mix of manned and unmanned aircraft to replace its Eurofighters with sometime between 2015 and 2020." So I don't think there is any suggestion that Typhoon will remain in service beyond 2030. Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Aerodynamic Modification Kit Significant? Early trials of the AMK has shown astonishing results; 25% increase in left, 45% increase in AoA and 100% in roll rate. Twobellst@lk 14:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC) What about right? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC) References External links modified Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Eurofighter Typhoon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130417004710/http://www.datalinksolutions.net:80/dls/news/02_4-23.asp to http://www.datalinksolutions.net/dls/news/02_4-23.asp Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090827012713/http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk:80/Eurofighter/cockpit.html to http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/cockpit.html Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150403095939/http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/defenceannualreport_2002_2003/subs/sub6.pdf to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/defenceannualreport_2002_2003/subs/sub6.pdf Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120517125457/http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00089/2_Eurofighter_capabi_89302a.pdf to http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00089/2_Eurofighter_capabi_89302a.pdf Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120723080239/http://www.geopowers.com/Machte/Deutschland/Rustung/Rustung_2008/Bundeswehrplan_2009.pdf to http://www.geopowers.com/Machte/Deutschland/Rustung/Rustung_2008/Bundeswehrplan_2009.pdf Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131203002306/http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_100006_26/06/2006_71338 to http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_100006_26/06/2006_71338 When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found. If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool. If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Shoddy workmanship http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/10/13/germany-suspends-eurofighter-deliveries-due-quality-problems/73871500/ Not notable for an EU aircraft? Hcobb (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC) It doesnt appear to be notable but then I have no idea what an "EU aircraft" is. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Seems very surprising, if the fault can be traced back as far as Tranche 1, that it's only just been spotted now, at Tranche 3A. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Maybe it's just me, but I think that a manufacturing flaw going so far back in the production lineage, causes a major customer to refuse deliveries, and affects the long-term viability of the airframes constructed during that time just might be worth a mention. Regardless of who manufactured it... :-) Scr★pIronIV 21:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC) You could be right. Design a plane like a jigsaw; put equal numbers of parts, in four separate boxes, seemingly at random; send off the parts to four separate countries; get the counties to put their bits together; and then re-assemble the jigsaw at a set of different locations... What could possibly go wrong? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) .... oh hang on, I know, they could ask a lawyer... EuroFighter avionics is a federated architecture http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2006/PAPERS/214.PDF Is Brixel of EADS a sufficiently reliable source for the claim of how previous generation the EF is? Hcobb (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC) "Generations" doesnt really make any sense outside of the fanboy world so doesnt need sourcing or even a mention. The document appears to be talking about ideas to improve the aircraft electronics although it makes no definite proposals so can probably be put in the light reading for those interested in avionics pile. MilborneOne (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Images of the Typhoon? This is simply a question about the images and the way they are used in the article. At first I was just going to change them around, but I don't feel like looking up my login, and I don't want to do an anonymous change without rationale. It seems there are some passionate editors here, so I'm going to ask a question and make a suggestion, rather than mess with the article myself. The Typhoon is quite unique in its design. There are very few modern fighters using the canard-delta wing setup, and as such it is easily the most immediately recognizable identifying feature of the plane. Why then, in this article, is the first image of this plane that unambiguously shows the canard-delta the sixth picture? I'm no expert on fighter planes but I do maintain an amateur fascination with them. The wing configuration of the Eurofighter Typhoon is very much its primary identifying feature for most people, and thus an image demonstrating the wing design should hold a much more prominent position: namely the first image. An average, non-expert, layman won't be able to immediately differentiate the profile of this plane from many other modern fighters. To these people it could easily be an F-16, or any other plane, as far as they are able to tell. Yeah, I know experts or even people like myself that maintain an interest in planes, can see the (to us) obvious differences in the profile, but I feel Wikipedia articles should be, at least in part, designed for the uninitiated masses. This is particularly important in the synopsis of the article, which is used to generate summaries in most of the available aftermarket apps and aggregators. The first image we see should be selected with that in mind to show the plane's most recognizable feature. A civilian on the ground is almost never going to see this plane in a direct profile, and even if they did it would look like any other fighter plane to them. My suggestion is that the sixth image in the article, or one of a similar angle (that shows the profile and wing shape), be given the primary slot in this article. It would significantly improve the public perception and identification of this plane and its unique design within the world's modern air forces. As I said, I initially was going to just change it myself, and actually was about to hit "save page", but stopped out of respect for the involved editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3027:7F0:1CEB:7B7F:B652:BE51 (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Performance (vs Su-30MKi) My edit should not have been removed as it has much right to be in the wiki as previous descriptions of training encounters between these two fighters which because of their rarity need to be documented in full. I was condescendingly told that it was 'chest-thumping' to report 1st-hand reports from meet participants yet the overtly cheer-leading one-sided RAF subjective comment "However, in one to one dogfights the Typhoon was found to be superior due to the fighter's 'next generation' technology." is left in the wiki which smacks of double standards and subjective bias. I have no dog in this hunt, I merely want as much granularity to be shone on Typhoon performance as possible but am prevented to by those who already consider it a closed and shut case ! As to the comment that it was not actual combat how likely is that to happen in our lifetimes and anyway that would appear in the operations section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsavian (talk • contribs) 12:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Your edit was appropriately removed, and adequate reasoning was given. Did you not understand the reasons provided, or did you merely wish to complain? No edit has any "right" to be here. The first meet was notable, subsequent meets are not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of all data and aspects of any particular topic. An overview, and some detail - but not a historical record of every nut and bolt, every variant, every mock dogfight that an aircraft has ever participated in. Savvy? Scr★pIronIV 13:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Just to clarify, the "chest-thumping" was by each side, not your adding of the reports. - BilCat (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Not remotely convinced by the flawed reasons given. This is NEW DATA on Typooon's performance and fundamentally contradicts the existing data. To omit this data is to deprive the wider world of a very important new datapoint. I wish this taken to a higher authority as I find these actions and reasons given totally inadequate. - Marsavian. It is a shame that you are unconvinced; however, there is not a consensus to include this data. Feel free to open an RfC to generate a wider opinion. You are edit warring against two project editors who both agree that this information does not belong. Continue, and you will be reported. You are already in violation of WP:3RR Scr★pIronIV 17:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC) I see no reason to include this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Me neither, it's just an unsubstantiated claim by "IAF pilots", a claim that is denied by an RAF source. Thomas.W talk 18:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC) And it's not really "NEW DATA on Typooon's performance" at all - it's comparing apples and oranges in terms of the formats of the two evaluations. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Still not remotely convinced by any of the replies I have seen since the first unnecessary and arbitrary removal of my contribution. Collectively you have decided to keep the RAF's once-sided and uncorroborated view in the wiki of an earlier meet yet when newer data appears that flatly contradicts this obvious sales pitch at the time for the Indian MMRCA contract it is still allowed to remain as the 'final' performance word between these two fighters ! Words fail me as I am staggered to the obvious lack of balance and logical consistency here especially as my more recent accounts actually have first-hand details of the actual WVR encounters (12-0) which is obviously new granularity data as compared to a boastful RAF officer quoting generalities to sell his aircraft and brand-new data on BVR encounters. Notice the RAF reply to the IAF's recent claim does not give an alternative score but in effect makes excuses but I still quoted it for balance reasons. I also quoted the difference between WVR and BVR encounters which is obviously new data as no-one really disputes the Typhoon/Captor/Meteor/low RCS combination makes it one of the best long-range killers out there (probably second only to F-22 in long-range duels) and it was good to have that confirmed against the Su-30MKi although even then at 25 miles Typhoon is still not showing what it can really do like excelling in the 50-200 mile range. However all this valuable new data has been thrown out in deference to a 8-year old sales pitch boast by the RAF ! This is just so incredibly poor and does not do good service to this fine public encyclopaedia. As such I would like this escalated all the way to Jimmy Wales if necessary (which I will probably do myself if there is not a formal way to escalate all the way to the top) until my objections are overcome with logic and reason rather than with condescending abusive editorial replies by project editors who are clearly abusing their power. Here are the two links I supplied at the time for reference purposes. - Marsavian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsavian (talk • contribs) 12:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC) http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian-air-forces-top-guns-score-wins-in-the-uk-1204336 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/indian-air-force-beats-raf-120-in-training-exercise--using-russiandesigned-jets-10444466.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsavian (talk • contribs) 12:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC) I agree. Words fail you. But I'm not sure escalating "all the way to Jimmy Wales" is going to make much difference. He works with consensus, just like the rest if us. Well, most of the rest of us. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC) p.s I don't have any "power". You really ought to go read WP:CONSENSUS Marsavian. Oh and for the heck of it, go read WP:JIMBO. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC) And Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo also. - BilCat (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC) This event has been fully and officially clarified by both parties as having been a fabrication and is no longer relevant for inclusion. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/165923/india-backs-down-on-washout-claims-against-raf-typhoons.html http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/air-force-backs-down-on-indo-uk-exercise-claims-says-no-wins-and-losses/articleshow/48426394.cms Both the RAF and IAF have catagorically and officially stated that no such event occured. There has been no proven source for this event yet at all. Only current sources are to be included for Wikipedia, not ones that have since been disproven by all involved parties. If you have new evidence as to this event from either the RAF/MoD or the IAF's official stance that states differently then please show it here for discussion before editing in outdated information. TheFuzzyOne (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Air-to-air weapons? Am I missing something, or is there no mention in the "Armament" section of air-to-air weapons (apart from the gun)? Alansplodge (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Currencies and conversions As this is a multi-Nation European project, shouldn't all cost figures be given in €s? Should all €s be converted to £s (and to $s)? Or should all costs quoted simply be copied from the relevant sources? Currently the article has 10 €s, 16 £s amd 9 $s, but the rationale, if there is any, is unclear. Perhaps MoS dictates what should happen? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC) I imagine some of the £ figures relate to spending made by the UK, which makes sense as that's the currency it would use. Some of the $ mentions are using the convert template following euro figures (which an IP has argued is unnecessary, but left the article inconsistent in that respect); others relate to contracts made for, or competitions open to, aircraft other than the Eurofighter, including U.S. aircraft. MPS1992 (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC) So, inconsistency doesn't really matter? But are any changes needed? I mean - even in the infobox we have those two different currencies for unit costs. Are they not comparable anyway, because they relate to different years? And would it be useful to see $ equivalents there especially, to compare with US jets? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC) Are you implying that inconsistency does not really matter, or are you asking me if I think that it does not really matter? Or are you asking me if I think that it does not really matter while implying that you think it does matter? I do wonder how important it is. Today, the £ has been plummeting towards parity with the euro, next year the opposite might be the case, meanwhile as you rightly say, military aircraft costs can vary by far greater margins just from one year to another. MPS1992 (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC) Probably all three. I guess any conversions need to be tied to the year the costs were published by the source. That's not something had happens automatically with the convert template, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC) External links modified Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Eurofighter Typhoon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090906021119/http://cities.expressindia.com:80/fullstory.php?newsid=252960 to http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=252960 Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140226090607/http://www.altair.com.pl/news/view?news_id=12775 to http://www.altair.com.pl/news/view?news_id=12775 When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool. If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC) First one (in Polish) works, second appears to not work. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC) Climb Rate I amended this to 318m/s based on BBC 1 Nov 2009, stated climb rate >25% better than an F-16. An F-16 is quoted at >50,000ft/min or 254m/s, so I multipled that by 1.25, which gives 318m/s. It is also restated here: https://web.archive.org/web/20100323115853/http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/frheft/FRH9905/FR9905c.htm. In reality this figure is very conservative because the F-16 is actually capable of 60,000ft/min.http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=23618&sid=a2c8cb8a974cbe410fe5ccc06444c008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.120 (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC) In other words, pure original research through synthesis. HLGallon (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC) User:HLGallon, my thoughts exactly. I believe that 86.143.164.120 is a sock of a banned user and have opened an SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Z07x10 regards Mztourist (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC) It is the only source available on climb rate and is essentially where the >315m/s before it came from. There is no official source stating 315m/s or otherwise. So failing that figure, all we can write is 'unknown'. That quote from http://www.flugrevue.de/ in my link above is absolutely all we have. And please put down your sock puppet allegations, it's really unhelpful and incorrect. If you can provide a more official source for 315m/s that isn't a direct copy and paste from wiki then fine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.120 (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Z07x10, I am convinced this is you socking as your OR/Synth arguments remain unchanged. IP 86.143.164.120 has only been active on Wikipedia since 19 October (excluding 1 edit from the same IP on 3 June 2007 and 1 on 18 May 2016) and has somehow immediately focussed in on this page and related weapons pages. I do not intend to engage with you further other than in relation to the SPI and will revert any OR/Synth changes you make. Mztourist (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC) You are mistaken and your SPI has been rejected. Now for the last time, can you provide an official source that states 315m/s? I am not attempting OR or synth here, the fact is that the only official statement on climb rate comes from a test pilot who said, "25% better than F-16." There simply is no other source that isn't a direct C&P of wiki. So if we do not like the test pilot source then the only logical option is to remove the climb rate figure altogether.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.120 (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Z07x10, you've aleady burned your bridges, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Don't know what you're talking about, Mztourist's SPI has been declined, I am not the user you mention. If these accusations persist I will lodge a formal complaint due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTNOTHERE. Please either discuss this subject constructively or desist. Z07x10/86.143.164.120 the SPI hasn't been declined, only the check user since it was some time since you were blocked, so apparently they can't check the IP addresses. It is remarkable how familiar you are with Wikipedia policies for someone who has supposedly only been on Wikipedia for 2 days.Mztourist (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Ah right, yes, just a terrible concidence. Did that other user ever refer to that same source, I wonder. Very brave of you to jump right in to such a contentious topic like that. But I see that the SPI case "is now awaiting a behaviour investigation." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC) p.s. could you remember to sign your posts? (being a complete novice and all that). thanks Note that the 25% better than an F16 quote is practically meaningless, as it doesn't specify what model of F16 was meant, at what weight, with what engine, all of which will affect the climb rate - in addition, F16.net is not a reliable source for the F16's climb rate anyway. If we don't have a reliable source for specs then we should omit them.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC) While it is not an instantaneous climb rate, there is the climb to 35000 ft in less than 21⁄2 minutes, which is in the BAE Systems fact sheet. Jane's All The World's Aircraft 2003–2004 gives the same time to height, but at Mach 1.5 rather than Mach 1.6.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC) That seems to ring a bell with some earlier discussion we had on this topic, that's all in the archive. Another terrible coincidence, it seems. Don't forget that quote was "about 25% better than an F16" i.e someone's qualitative opinion. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC) To answer the questions above, (ignoring the silly quibbles and suspicions). The f-16.net link did contain a picture straight from the official F-16 flight manual, now removed. You are correct that there are two climbs to altitude specified. The M1.5 35,000ft figure is with the AAM loadout including drop tanks as the following link states. https://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/TecGuide.pdf The M1.6 36,000ft figure is a clean aircraft (no load), which is commonly how it's worked out and this is provided by BAE SYSTEMS, one of the manufacturers.http://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/product/typhoon2, www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2008/PAPERS/704.PDF. It also states 1.2+ for the Thrust-to-weight ratio incidentally. My problem with the maximum climb rate figure is that this test pilot statement https://web.archive.org/web/20100323115853/http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/frheft/FRH9905/FR9905c.htm is the closest we have to an official figure, so I multiplied the >254m/s wiki provides for the F-16 by 1.25 to get >318m/s. If we cannot agree on this figure, then I suggest that we remove the climb rate altogether, because there is no other source for climb rate aside from copy and pastes of wiki. My edit was made in good faith, there is simply no official source for >315m/s, which itself is an inaccurate interpretation of the flug-revue comment. As I said, if you can find me one then fine, I'm not looking for an argument, simply trying to improve wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.120 (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC) All so reminiscent of your max speed and RCS arguments Z07x10 Mztourist (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Why do you insist in flinging accusations instead of debating the subject? Is there another official source for climb rate or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.120 (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC) We're not limited to 'official' sources on Wikipedia, only reliable sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Okay Fnlayson (talk), in that case is there a reliable source that isn't a copy and paste of wikipedia because none of those listed at the top of the specifications section state climb rate. Surely Flug-revue is reliable? https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flug_Revue "The Flugrevue is a monthly German-language magazine which at air- and space-interested oriented readers. According to Publisher's summary Flug Revue Europe's top-selling aerospace magazine. She is a member of the Federation of German aerospace industry" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.120 (talk) 11:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC) 86.143.164.120 you should desist making any further edits until the SPI is concluded. Mztourist (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Mztourist (talk) you should desist in continuing your allegations until the SPI is concluded. The SPI is already in progress, therefore your comments on this page regarding the same matter are both unnecessary and disruptive. I have made nothing but good faith edits using reliable, world-renowned sources, exactly in line with the spirit of Wikipedia. It is not for you to decide who can and cannot edit. Feel free to contribute to this topic with related sources and dialogue but leave the SPI talk for the SPI. Do you understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.120 (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Z07x10 people have no interest wasting their time arguing with you about your OR/Synth regarding climb rate any more than they did about RCS and Max Speed, we all have better things to do than wasting our time arguing over your latest obsession. Multiple users disagree with your climb rate change, but you won't accept consensus. It was for behaviour like this that you were legitimately blocked, but you have now snuck back in using a sock and unfortunately the SPI takes time. Mztourist (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Desist with your false allegations and address the point at hand. Where is the source to back up the revert? Without a source it's even worse than OR/Synth, it's just a guess. OR is when you come up with something without reliable, published sources. Flug-revue is the largest aviation publication in Europe, therefore your statement is invalid and what's more, you know it by this stage, you're just trying to be disruptive. Basic arithemtic is also not synthesis, and you know this also. You should try actually reading the Wikipedia rules that you keep quoting, or even better try adhering to them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.120 (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Z07x10 WP:DTS you have no consensus for this change and no-one is interested in arguing with a sock who will be blocked.Mztourist (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC) What has consensus got to do with a reliable source? Is this some weird kind of attempt to provoke a behavioural pattern to fit your ridiculous allegations? Hopefully Wiki admin aren't so incredibly dumb as to fall for that. Instead of sockpuppeting your other accounts and saying no consensus, how about you just provide a single reliable source to support your position. Seriously, I'll consider any source you can provide for a revert but right now, Flug-revue is the only reliable source. If we can't agree on that, we should remove the climb rate figure altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.120 (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Another Z07x10 trait, accusing established users of being socks because they don't agree with you. The Flug-revue comments are the opinion of one pilot which you have OR/Synthed to get a climb rate, that is not WP:RS and there is consensus against this change. Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Blah, blah, blah. It is a statement by a test pilot who has likely actually seen the performance manual. Provide me with one single source for the revert and stop trying to create diversions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.120 (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC) So clearly not WP:RS Mztourist (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC) "Blah, blah, blah" is not the most convincing argument for including the subjective opinion of a single person as if it were a reliable and well-sourced fact. Don't aircraft manufacturers go to extreme lengths, in flight test, to properly and scientifically establish such limits, as part of a flight controls qualification programme? Whether they wish to publish such data is their decision, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC) I apologise for my attitude but I've had enough of Mztourist (talk) and his disruptive, aggressive and insulting behaviour. If we don't like Flug-revue as the source, then we should remove the climb rate data altogether as there is no source to support a reversion to the old figure. And BTW, the original BBC source stated the same thing, "25% better than the F-16," and I believe the original figure was an incorrect calculation made on that basis. Manufacturers do go to extreme lengths to verify these figures but we have no statement of peak climb rate from manufacturers, such data is still classified. My now dead link also showed the actual climb rate of an F-16 to be 60,000ft/s, so '>318m/s' is highly conservative. As said before, please include other reliable sources if you have them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.120 (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Climb rate based on what? Max dry or reheat? Lightest or heaviest mass? From ground to 60,000ft or something else? With all stores or clean? Hot weather or cold? Was our favourite Flug-revue pilot giving us a weighted mean figure, for all these separate conditions, that he'd just mentally calculated? Or what? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Usually climb rate refers to peak instantaneous sustainable climb rate and a test pilot is likely to have seen the performance data as well as having flown both aircraft. I am happy to remove the climb data altogether if we think it unclear though. There is however no other reliable source to support a reversion or another figure. Flug-revue is literally all we have.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.120 (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Flug-revue may be an informative source that is well respected by many in the industry. As a source for this detail, in this article, it's pants. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Well in that case please refer to the article because Air Forces Monthly is also quoted as a source for the specifications, as it is for many other jet fighter articles, along with Aviation Week. So there is a clear precedent for sourcing this kind of data from aviation magazines. If you want a specific example, see F-22 supercruise figure and max speed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Specifications_.28F-22A.29 Again if you have a better source please put it forward.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.120 (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC) I’m sure Wolfgang Schirdewahn was a great Chief Test Pilot for DASA, even 17 years ago. But there is nothing you can say that will convince me his casual remark that climb rate is "about 25 per cent better than that of the F-16 Fighting Falcon" is good enough as a source for this article. The article also says "According to the manufacturer the aircraft reaches a height of 35,000ft in less than two and a half minutes." That claim, however, is wholly unqualified. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Err, yes it is.http://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/product/typhoon2 "Brakes off to 36,000 feet Mach 1.6 in under 2½ minutes." So clearly the test pilot knows his stuff. I can't believe we're even having a debate about whether a test pilot is a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.120 (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC) I thought we were discussing your flug-review source? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC) I completely agree with Martinevans123. Z07x10 you do show remarkable versatility in changing your argument every time you are proven wrong. I hardly need to point out that BAE is a primary source rather than the secondary sources we use here on Wikipedia. Mztourist (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC) As I pointed out to you Z07x10 a couple of years ago, there is no consensus for your change, move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Martinevans123 (talk) Primary sources are accepted if reliable and in this case there are two primary sources, BAE SYSTEMS and Eurofighter GmbH and a secondary source Flug-revue saying roughly the same thing on climb to 36,000ft. The slightly slower speed includes AAMs and drop tanks (not a clean aircraft as commonly used for performance claims) and this is stated in the Eurofighter Tech Guide. No secondary sources, i.e. publications, have tested these aircraft, so anything they write is simply a C&P of the primary source. Dbrodbeck (talk) a consensus is null and void without a single source to back it up. It is more than just a vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus If we can't accept Flug-revue, the data point should be removed altogether rather than reverted to a figure with no source, that is in itself based on this 25% statement (but this time in BBC) but with an incorrect calculation. Put simply, '>318m/s' comes from the same place as '>315m/s' but the latter is an incorrect calculation of 1.25*254m/s and the former is correct. The so-called consensus position simply wishes to revert to the incorrectly calculated figure, which makes zero sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.120 (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC) External links modified Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 6 external links on Eurofighter Typhoon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227123111/http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/canardsS03.pdf to http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/canardsS03.pdf Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jav/jav_a062.html Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130524185506/http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-01-31/news/31010328_1_eurofighter-dassault-and-eads-iaf to http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-01-31/news/31010328_1_eurofighter-dassault-and-eads-iaf Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120216225153/http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/singapore-air-show/2012-02-14/rafale-blowing-hot-again-switzerland-uae to http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/singapore-air-show/2012-02-14/rafale-blowing-hot-again-switzerland-uae Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220024154/http://www.cityam.com/blog/1387471898/uae-pulls-out-bae-typhoon-aircraft-deal to http://www.cityam.com/blog/1387471898/uae-pulls-out-bae-typhoon-aircraft-deal Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/frheft/FRH9905/FR9905c.htm When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024). If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool. If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC) External links modified Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 22 external links on Eurofighter Typhoon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-eurofighter-delivers-500th-typhoon-436125/ Corrected formatting/usage for http://airheadsfly.com/2017/04/11/500th-eurofighter-typhoon-delivered/ Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/2017/04/11/500th-eurofighter-rolled-out-in-turin/ Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326130355/http://www.europeansecurityanddefence.info/Ausgaben/2_2005/04_EUROFIGHTER/2005%2C02%2C04%2C01.html to http://www.europeansecurityanddefence.info/Ausgaben/2_2005/04_EUROFIGHTER/2005%2C02%2C04%2C01.html Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081024084058/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/NewTyphoonsFlyIntoRafConingsby.htm to http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/NewTyphoonsFlyIntoRafConingsby.htm Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016225722/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_2_217/ai_n28975975/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_2_217/ai_n28975975/ Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110705014206/http://www.eurofighter.com/media/news0/news-detail/article/press-release-eurofighter-and-euroradar-confirm-2015-entry-into-service-target-date-for-the-typhoo.html to http://www.eurofighter.com/media/news0/news-detail/article/press-release-eurofighter-and-euroradar-confirm-2015-entry-into-service-target-date-for-the-typhoo.html Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141223122640/http://defenceradar.com/2014/12/23/eurofighter-nations-team-for-aesa-radar-development/ to http://defenceradar.com/2014/12/23/eurofighter-nations-team-for-aesa-radar-development/ Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150912193825/http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/sensors.html to http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/sensors.html Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141127103445/http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/sensors.html to http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/sensors.html Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120920084934/http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/efworld/efworld0202012.pdf to http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/efworld/efworld0202012.pdf Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091128185425/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/TyphoonLaunchesOperationallyForTheFirstTime.htm to http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/TyphoonLaunchesOperationallyForTheFirstTime.htm Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429023726/http://www.bfbs.com/news/raf/typhoon-pilot-describes-first-air-ground-strike-46743.html to http://bfbs.com/news/raf/typhoon-pilot-describes-first-air-ground-strike-46743.html Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110223153748/https://pmddtc.state.gov/reports/congnotices/110/010-08.pdf to http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/reports/congnotices/110/010-08.pdf Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129181644/http://blog.gmfus.org/2012/02/08/europes-fratricidal-defense-exports/ to http://blog.gmfus.org/2012/02/08/europes-fratricidal-defense-exports/ Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927053614/http://www.eurofighter.com/media/news0/news-detail/article/eurofighter-opensoffice-in-athens.html to http://www.eurofighter.com/media/news0/news-detail/article/eurofighter-opensoffice-in-athens.html Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-01-31/news/31010328_1_eurofighter-dassault-and-eads-iaf Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120920084934/http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/efworld/efworld0202012.pdf to http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/efworld/efworld0202012.pdf Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301010335/http://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=2522&thisSection=military to http://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=2522&thisSection=military Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929142802/http://duxford.iwm.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.6079 to http://duxford.iwm.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.6079 Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102200955/http://www.mtu.de/de/products_services/military_business/programs/ej200/EJ200.pdf to http://www.mtu.de/de/products_services/military_business/programs/ej200/EJ200.pdf Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150714141600/https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/WHR_1-15_Maximising_European_Combat_Air_Power.pdf to https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/WHR_1-15_Maximising_European_Combat_Air_Power.pdf When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024). If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool. If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC) External links modified Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 10 external links on Eurofighter Typhoon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319052436/http://www.eurofighter.com/media/news0/news-detail/article/unique-amraam-firing-with-eurofighter-typhoon.html to http://www.eurofighter.com/media/news0/news-detail/article/unique-amraam-firing-with-eurofighter-typhoon.html Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.armada.ch/aircraft-self-protection-sophistication/ Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110901224810/http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/flight-sys.html to http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/flight-sys.html Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205172519/http://www.lssag.ch/website%2003%2011.html to http://www.lssag.ch/website%2003%2011.html Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927053641/http://www.eurofighter.com/media/news0/news-detail/article/farnborough-day-iii-rauen-speaks-media-listen.html to http://www.eurofighter.com/media/news0/news-detail/article/farnborough-day-iii-rauen-speaks-media-listen.html Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014142657/http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/2011/03/20/new-libya-ceasefire-as-jets-zero-in-91466-28372278/ to http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/2011/03/20/new-libya-ceasefire-as-jets-zero-in-91466-28372278/ Added {{dead link}} tag to http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=allBreakingNews&storyID=2007-06-26T184013Z_01_N26251168_RTRIDST_0_AUSTRIA-EUROFIGHTER-UPDATE-1.XML Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070108151135/http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=businessNews to http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2006-12-14T181242Z_01_WLA6589_RTRUKOC_0_UK-BAE-SAUDI.xml Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140219144627/http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/01/20140103-120155.html to http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/01/20140103-120155.html Added {{dead link}} tag to http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=allBreakingNews&storyID=2007-10-17T101801Z_01_T350585_RTRIDST_0_JAPAN-DEFENCE-FIGHTERS.XML Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.afp.com/en/node/2485613 Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090918033338/http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/weapons.html to http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/weapons.html Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090819091153/http://typhoon.starstreak.net/ to http://typhoon.starstreak.net/ When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024). If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool. If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)