Wikipedia

Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon/Archive 7

< Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon
Latest comment: 3 years ago by 86.189.224.86 in topic An ambiguous sentence
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

controversy / sovereign control

Latest comment: 7 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

According to this article the Eurofighter is not able to take off without its software getting special US permission codes each time. These codes come directly from the US (the Pentagon's DSCA) and may only be entered personally by DSCA personnel, two of whom are permanently stationed for this purpose on the Austrian air base the article reports about. At Austrian taxcpayer's cost. Thus, Austria does not have sovereign control over its own aircraft. (I've seen this information pop up a few times in the past, both for the Eurofighter and certain F16 export variants, but don't have additional cites ready now)

I would like to include this information into the articles, under a controversy section. Thougths? Wefa (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure why it is controversial and I am sure the lack of "codes" would not stop the Eurofighter flying, really needs a reliable source but I suspect it is somebody not understanding whats going on as "radio encryption and friendships" just look like codes for IFF and secure radios to talk to other military aircraft and agencies. MilborneOne (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
The article contains a direct quote from a defense ministry official naming indeed "software for navigation, radio encryption and IFF" (translation is mine) as item that will not run without US codes. But the article also clearly states that the planes are not allowed to take off without having those codes.Wefa (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree with MilborneOne, likely to be secure radio or IFF codes. Nothing that would prevent take-off, but which yes could compromise operational effectiveness, depending on who the Austrian Air Force were trying to cooperate with. But this is rather insignificant compared with the Austrian threat to sue Airbus and the Eurofighter consortium for 1.1bn euros over being misled over the original purchase price? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
any sources on your interpretation? Wefa (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, unable to find any, even from Austria. Was that your only one? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
more links: krone.at says essentially the same. VOL.at, a regional news portal quotes a regional TV station with "Bundesheer must buy codes for every start from US company". Die Presse makes a more limited claim (codes are necessary and changed often, but not for every takeoff) quoting a named high ranking officer), and FAZ focuses on the maintenance aspect, noting that the US presence in Austria is necessary because the Eurofighter Navigation, Encryption and IFF units are delivered as "black boxes" by the US and can only be maintained by them. No operational claims are made. If you Google "NSA in Zeltweg" you are likely to find more sources. The suspected NSA presence in Zeltweg has been a matter of contentious parliamentrary debates and official inquiries by opposition parties in Austria. Wefa (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for those links. Certianly the Nav Computer, supplied by G.D.UK I beleive, will have loadable mission data. And the IFF will have loadable cryptos, as will the radios of course. But what on earth are the NSA doing there, meddling around with a product delivered and managed by a totally foreign consortium and owned and operated by a foreign nation's airforce?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Don's quarrel with me, quarrel with the sources :-). All sources seem to agree that there are two US citizens employed by a US entity working in an office at Zeltweg Airfield, and one of their functions is to frequently provide codes necessary for the operation of the Eurofighters that are based in Zeltweg. Austrian opposition parties also think those two guys actually work for NSA, but the Austrian government has steadfastly denied that. Furthermore, all sources explicitly state that the navigation, radio encryption and IFF unit(s) are actually provided by a US company under US rules (presumably a GD subsidiary there), so your primary source GD-UK may just describe a commercial fiction. As to the quality of the sources, all three papers certainly are reliable sources per Wikipedia policy, and voat.at and the TV station they quote (Servus TV) are quite likely so, too. Wefa (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
It still looks like somebody is adding two and two and getting five here, do we have any evidence that the avionics in the Austrian aircraft is any different to the others. Nothing stopping an aircraft flying, you dont need secure radios and IFF codes to actually fly in Austrian airspace but you will not get any co-operation from NATO AWACS and the like. Still like to see an independent reliable source about this and Austrian Eurofighters are clearly flying so at worst it just seems to be a political thing and not really noteworthy for this page. MilborneOne (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Here's a 2009 source which discusses the NSA's involvement in MIDS-JTRS, also because of security concerns, although no special treatment of Austria is mentioned: [1]. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, this looks like an interoperability with NATO thing, as Austria doesnt have any NATO infrastructure it needs some sort of contact with NATO to get the right codes so it can talk with AWACS and the like. Doesnt stop the aircraft flying. MilborneOne (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Quite agree. Fleet-wide groundings are usually seen as notable and, although this is obviously very controversial in Austria, I'm not sure it's sufficiently notable to be included in this article. Maybe Austrian Air Force would be a better location? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Guys, I'm still here. This is such absurdly obvious against all Wikipedia rules that I don't know if to laugh or scream about it. But I'm also not sure if it's worth my (and your) time to fight this through the usual decision and escalation panels. You still seem to harbor the illusion that Wikipedia tries to report some absolute truth. It doesn't - it documents what others write about a thing. This works fundamentally different. Wefa (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 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:

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) 21:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

A vs An

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Below the image it says

A Eurofighter Typhoon

Shouldn't be An Eurofighter Typhoon ? Technical Peace (talk) 03:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Remember, it is the sound that makes it an or a, not the letter [2]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

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) 22:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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:

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) 22:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Qatari deal

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Qatar has confirmed its order for 24, per BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42302767 Press Association and Al Jazeera have the same, though the quoted price varies. Khamba Tendal (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

seems to be in article now. MPS1992 (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

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) 01:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

DASS Key

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the Avionics section, the diagram of the Praetorian system seems to be missing the key explaining what all the numbers are. 87.81.128.177 (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

https://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/eurofighter-dass2.jpg
Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Potential sales and failed bids

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have removed these two bits as they take up far to much of the article and are frankly not noteworthy. Aircraft companies market and bid for sales all the time its part of the day to day business, sometimes they get an order most times they dont but it is hardly noteworthy to the aircraft itself and is just trivia and guff. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

  Note: The content has been moved to Eurofighter Typhoon procurement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurofighter Typhoon procurement. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Please note that a sanity check on this deletion has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Failed bids which has resulted in the restoration of a number of noteworthy competitions. MilborneOne (talk) 09:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Engine afterburning thrust removed from specifications? Should be added back

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Change https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&oldid=907308787 removed the relevant afterburning thrust from the specifications list. I Tried to do partial revert but it uses some template magic and already old commit so not trivially revertable. --Hkultala (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

RAF section

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A large chunk of this section is XX squadron stood up on XX Month Year with associated text. Is that really noteworthy and/or required? If anyone wants to know the squadrons they are all listed further down in the article. I accept that some squadrons to require specific mention (e.g. first ever squadron, first multirole)> Mark83 (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

A query about ranges

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Could someone please explain the difference between "range", "combat range" and "ferry range"? I've also come across the term "combat radius" in other articles, what does that mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.117 (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Generally Range is how far an aircraft can fly and still return to home while combat armed, essentially half its maximum flight distance while loaded. Combat Range is very similar (as Range may just be being used as an abbreviation) but generally also includes the reserving of a small amount of fuel for dogfighting and evasive manoeuvres. Finally ferry range is how far it can fly with minimum load (sometimes even removable equipment stripped out to lighten it) one way, this is for when its being moved from one airfield to another and the journey may also require stops along the way or aerial refueling if its new home is further than its ferry range. Combat Radius is the same as Combat Range but represented as a circle on a map showing the points it can reach from a specified origin point. WatcherZero (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
OK thanks for the explanations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.117 (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I'm confused. You said combat range is similar to range but the article says that the Typhoon has a range of 2,900km and a combat range of 1,389km. These figures are very different. Also I basically just want to know how far an aircraft can fly from its base (or a carrier) and back again. Is this the combat range? I mean can a Typhoon fly 1,389km from its base and fly back the same distance? Or can it fly half that out (694.5km) and the same distance back again?
'Range' means how far an aircraft can normally fly. 'Ferry range' means how far it can fly with maximum auxiliary fuel (often special ferry tanks), at cruise power, with no weapons. 'Combat radius', on the other hand, means how far it can operate from base, on a typical mission profile, with a combat load, allowing for spells at high power, while retaining enough fuel to fly home again. The comments above are wrong. The use of the term 'combat range' in the article's specification is mistaken and the cited source uses the correct term 'combat radius'. With three drop tanks the Typhoon can carry out a ground-attack mission at 750 nautical miles or 1,389km from base and return. (An alternative term, used by Jane's, is 'radius of action'. But the word 'range' is on no account to be used in technical specs when you mean the distance at which a combat aircraft can operate with return fuel in hand. Otherwise you confuse people, QED.) A combat air patrol would need to be closer to base, absent inflight refuelling, because the fighter needs more fuel to loiter on station, whereas in the bomber role it just goes out and comes back. Khamba Tendal (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

An ambiguous sentence

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Quote: [...] and is manufactured by a consortium of Airbus, BAE Systems and Leonardo that conducts the majority of the project [...]

Who conducts the majority of the project?

  1. consortium of Airbus?
  2. consortium of the three companies (Airbus, BAE Systems and Leonardo) ?
  3. Leonardo?

85.193.228.103 (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

As the article says in "Origins", the original workshare was this: "The share of the production work was divided among the countries in proportion to their projected procurement – BAe (33%), DASA (33%), Aeritalia (21%), and Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA (CASA) (13%)." Leonardo, the successor of Aeritalia, is just one member of the consortium. DASA and CASA have been merged into Airbus. Adding commas to that sentence might help make it clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.189.224.86 (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon/Archive_7&oldid=1189586825"