www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEm3Sq1dLKQ&NR

Pretty impressive for apparently not having any vectored thrust

It does not have vectored thrust but at last I heard it does have supercruise.  Aerobatic displays are not realistic because the plane will be carrying an ordinance load in actual use/combat thus it will not be able to move and manuever at those speeds and angles.  If it can do that loaded I will be impressed.

eh.. F16 could take it.

Quoted: It does not have vectored thrust but at last I heard it does have supercruise.  Aerobatic displays are not realistic because the plane will be carrying an ordinance load in actual use/combat thus it will not be able to move and manuever at those speeds and angles.  If it can do that loaded I will be impressed.

+1

As the load of a given aircraft is increased the jet is "limited" as to how many G's it can take. Of course if SHTF both engine parameters and G limitations can be bi-passed.  

None the less...that jet is badass.

I'll bet that thing's turning ability sucks ass. There's a reason we went away from deltas and flying wings 40 years ago. Watching it fly at low speed in that vid shows that putting a canard on the thing doesn't help it with high angle of attack mushing and pushing.

+1, an F16 could take this thing if both pilots have "gone Winchester"..

Quoted: I'll bet that thing's turning ability sucks ass. There's a reason we went away from deltas and flying wings 40 years ago. Watching it fly at low speed in that vid shows that putting a canard on the thing doesn't help it with high angle of attack mushing and pushing. +1, an F16 could take this thing if both pilots have "gone Winchester"..

I wouldn't be so quick to discount the Eurofighter.  It has a very good power to weight ratio.  Where is Vito?

Delta wings bleed a lot of energy in tight turns, but the canards should help this, perhaps fixing it.

Flying wings in genaral have high angle of attack problems/requirements, again the canards should remedy this.

The canards, avoiding downlifting stabilizers and the subsequent need for the main wing to lift more than the aircrafts weight problem...reducing induced drag and thus enabling supercruise.  Does this plane have 'relaxed stability'??

Canards do look like excellent radar reflectors.  Perhaps they aren't though.  

All in all that was an excellent video.  

Quoted: Quoted: I'll bet that thing's turning ability sucks ass. There's a reason we went away from deltas and flying wings 40 years ago. Watching it fly at low speed in that vid shows that putting a canard on the thing doesn't help it with high angle of attack mushing and pushing. +1, an F16 could take this thing if both pilots have "gone Winchester".. I wouldn't be so quick to discount the Eurofighter.  It has a very good power to weight ratio.  Where is Vito?

Getting to a dogfight quickly doesn't mean anything in a turning and burning contest.... You can put enough horsepower on a brick to make it fly-just that it will fly. Of course dogfighting might be a dying art with weapons and standoff distances being what they are these days..

Quoted: It does not have vectored thrust but at last I heard it does have supercruise.  Aerobatic displays are not realistic because the plane will be carrying an ordinance load in actual use/combat thus it will not be able to move and manuever at those speeds and angles.  If it can do that loaded I will be impressed.

The batch 3 will be fitted with TV nozzles… Can it pull lots of G's with a big load? Yes, I have some video I shot at Farnborogh 2006 of a Tornado with a full load of pavways doing bat turns.

ANdy

Eurofighter Typhoon has a foreplane/delta configuration which is, by nature, aerodynamically unstable. The instability of the aircraft is derived from the position of a theoretical “pressure point” on the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. This is calculated from the contribution to lift from each of the aircraft components (the wings, the canards, fuselage etc). If the pressure point is in front of the centre of gravity on the longitudinal axis, the aircraft is aerodynamically unstable and it is impossible for a human to control it. With the Eurofighter Typhoon, in subsonic flight the pressure point lies in front of the centre of gravity, therefore making the aircraft aerodynamically unstable, and is why Eurofighter Typhoon has such a complex Flight Control System – computers react quicker than a pilot. When Eurofighter Typhoon crosses into supersonic flight, the pressure point moves behind the centre of gravity, giving a stable aircraft. The advantages of an intentionally unstable design over that of a stable arrangement include greater agility – particularly at subsonic speeds  - reduced drag, and an overall increase in lift (also enhancing STOL performance). The only plane that will take this on is the F-22, the Rafale is even behind this fighter. The only reason the F-22 will take it is the stealth ability. The people who say the F-16 could take it, well they don't know anything fighter jets  

Quoted: The only reason the F-22 will take it is the stealth ability. The people who say the F-16 could take it, well they don't know anything fighter jets

[Limey In A Bar]Oi! I say we tax their tea 'an fine out or summink! Hold me stout, laddy.[/Limey In A Bar]

Quoted: The batch 3 will be fitted with TV nozzles… Can it pull lots of G's with a big load? Yes, I have some video I shot at Farnborogh 2006 of a Tornado with a full load of pavways doing bat turns. ANdy

But that's not really the same as pulling high g's with a load of paveways, and not dissipating too much airspeed while completing the maneuver, is it? Energy retention and management is the name of the game in air-to-air.

Quoted: I'll bet that thing's turning ability sucks ass. There's a reason we went away from deltas and flying wings 40 years ago. Watching it fly at low speed in that vid shows that putting a canard on the thing doesn't help it with high angle of attack mushing and pushing. +1, an F16 could take this thing if both pilots have "gone Winchester"..

And I'd bet you would be wrong… the only thing in the sky that fight with it is the F-22, everything else is 2nd fiddle, and that's not my opinion, that the opinion of General John P Jumper, the former USAF Chief of Staff who flew both the F-22 and Typhoon.

ANdy

Quoted: Quoted: I'll bet that thing's turning ability sucks ass. There's a reason we went away from deltas and flying wings 40 years ago. Watching it fly at low speed in that vid shows that putting a canard on the thing doesn't help it with high angle of attack mushing and pushing. +1, an F16 could take this thing if both pilots have "gone Winchester".. I wouldn't be so quick to discount the Eurofighter.  It has a very good power to weight ratio.  Where is Vito?

Power weight ratio is up around 1.4:1 on the latest engines at military power, they are talking about 20% extra thrust on the batch 3's that would put that up to around 1.7:1.

The Eurofighter Typhoon - A Technical Summary

The Typhoon employs a combined delta canard configuration with a wing area similar to the F-15, and similar internal fuel capacity, yet the aircraft has an empty weight of around 24,250 lb, much like a late model F/A-18C. The excellent empty weight of the Typhoon in relation to the wing size is as much a result of the compact configuration, as it is of the generous use of carbon fibre composites in the fuselage and wing of the aircraft. Titanium canards and outer control surfaces, and Aluminium Lithium alloy leading edges were employed to minimise weight yet achieve high structural strength.

The combined delta canard configuration and 538 ft^2 wing size confer very low wing loading on 50% internal fuel, and are optimised for transonic manoeuvre and supersonic dash performance. The combination of sweep angle and unstable aft CoG is clearly intended for minimising supersonic drag, and is comparable to a classical supersonic interceptor like the Mirage series, but is more modest than the "supercruiser" 72 degree swept inboard wing section of the F-16XL/E.

The Typhoon is unlikely to match the supersonic high G envelope of F-16XL/E due to a lower wing sweep angle, but will have a useful advantage over most teen/teenski series types optimised for transonic turning. In transonic manoeuvre, the automatic full span leading edge slats are used to adjust the wing camber and therefore reduce the lift induced drag at high G characteristic of classical deltas in this regime. Fuselage vortex generators on either side of the cockpit are employed to promote vortex formation at high AoA and low speeds, and thus increase lift.

The paired inlet is optimised for high AoA performance, using forebody flow to promote air ingestion, as well as a boundary layer splitter above the inlet. The combination of vortex lift and inlet geometry used by the Typhoon exploits the same ideas used in the F-16A/C/XL/E.

The loosely coupled canard is intended to provide high control authority at high angles of attack, by placing the surfaces ahead of the main vortices, but also to provide lower trim drag in supersonic flight.

In comparing the Typhoon to established fighters, the aerodynamic design exploits basic ideas used in F-16 family, but combines them with a strongly swept delta and canard configuration to extend the supersonic envelope, although not as aggressively as GD did with the 660 ft^2 cranked arrow F-16XL/E wing. The simpler wing design in the Typhoon in turn required canards to achieve the desired supersonic drag and manoeuvre envelope.

From the perspective of airframe optimisations, the Typhoon is without doubt optimised for its two primary design objectives, which are supersonic BVR interception and close in combat at transonic speeds, with no obvious concessions made to the secondary objective of strike. The low wing loading will confer excellent climb performance for the installed thrust, and the the delta configuration lower supersonic drag, in comparison with the F/A-18. The low wing loading is not optimal for low level strike profiles, but the gust sensitivity will be alleviated by the large sweep angle and the use of artificial stability and canards. The airframe is rated to +9/-3G at an undisclosed combat weight, pylon G ratings have also not been disclosed.

http://www.ausairpower.net/typhoon.html

Quoted: +1, an F16 could take this thing if both pilots have "gone Winchester"..

If they are still using the gun just for ballast, yep.

So in other words if we sent our best Eagle pilot up against the Typhoon...the American would lose?

Quoted: So in other words if we sent our best Eagle pilot up against the Typhoon...the American would lose?

Hmmm...good question.  I suspect the Typhoon might be in a bit of trouble against the Eagle.

We are all focusing too much on just the basic airframe.  An effective fighter/attack aircraft (or any other for that matter) is only as good as the sum of ALL the subsystems that make it up.  If any of these are deficient in any way against the projected threat, then the plane, regardless of how fast, maneuverable, fuel efficient, pretty, it is, then the entire aircraft combat system is only as efficient.  Aircraft history is replete with what, at the time, proponents called super planes...that when the final tally came in, were woefully down in certain critical areas making them less than the perfect killing machine.

Aircraft design is always a compromise in combining the most important parts of the design criteria.  Possibly the most glaring example of my thesis is the Japanese Zero:  Small, light weight, hard to see airframe; fuel efficient engine, very heavy (For its day now...don't make the mistake of thinking 1944...think 1938!) armament, exceptional maneuverability, exceptionally long operational range, great flying characteristics.  As we all know however, all of these positives came at the price of one great negative:  The Zero was very easy to kill because of its light construction and lack of both armor and self sealing fuel tanks.  While this didn't seem to bother the Samurai pilots, it certainly didn't help the Japanese nation as they lost so many fine aviators early in the war before they began adding these simple mods to their aircraft.

I'd be interested to learn certain details of the overall design:

1.  What is the unrefueled range of the plane with normal AAW and strike loadouts?

2.  How many stores points does it have?  What are the loads it can carry at each?

3.  What is the radar RCS at certain bands...such as L, C, S, and X?  All are going to be different.  Lots of straight edges and right angles on that plane.  I'd like to see the numbers from all aspects.  I have some very large reservations about those giant intakes.  GEM is a bitch.  

4.  What are the capabilities of the sensor suite?  Does the radar have an LPI mode?   If so, how effective is it?  How about IR looky see?  How good is the EW suite?

5.  Does the aircraft employ a towed decoy?  If so, is it permanent or a store?

6.  How does its energy profile picture match up against other aircraft at various altitudes?

7.  What weapons does it carry?  How much ordnance/other stores can it hump per sortie?

8.  What is its overall Ao (Operational Availability).  This includes ALL factors such as turn around time,  regular scheduled maintenance, MTBF, MTTR, etc..

9.  Does it take a master mechanic to fix it or can seaman/airman Timmy do it with say...a year of tech school behind him/her?

There are more...but I think y'all get the idea.

May be a world beater...but I think the jury is still out WRT it's true capabilities.  I do like the thing...its certainly a pretty little plane.

Finally...would Boyd like it?  

Quoted: So in other words if we sent our best Eagle pilot up against the Typhoon...the American would lose?

USAF F-15C's have been flying simulated ACM with RAF Typhoon's for about a year now… Typhoon wins.

ANdy

Quoted: Quoted: So in other words if we sent our best Eagle pilot up against the Typhoon...the American would lose? USAF F-16C's have been flying simulated ACM with RAF Typhoon's for about a year now… Typhoon wins.

Since when is the F-16C an Eagle?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So in other words if we sent our best Eagle pilot up against the Typhoon...the American would lose? USAF F-16C's have been flying simulated ACM with RAF Typhoon's for about a year now… Typhoon wins. Since when is the F-16C an Eagle?

That should read as F-15C's…

ANdy

Cute, but F-15 > ALL

Cheers!

How many of these are the Euro nations going to produce?

Quoted: How many of these are the Euro nations going to produce?

710 firm orders to date…

UK 232
Germany 180
Italy 121
Spain 87
Saudi Arabia 72
Austria 18

Quoted: Quoted: The only reason the F-22 will take it is the stealth ability. The people who say the F-16 could take it, well they don't know anything fighter jets   [Limey In A Bar]Oi! I say we tax their tea 'an fine out or summink! Hold me stout, laddy.[/Limey In A Bar]

did you just call me a limey? thats worse than calling me a yankee, and calling someone a yankee from where I'm from is dueling words buddy

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The only reason the F-22 will take it is the stealth ability. The people who say the F-16 could take it, well they don't know anything fighter jets   [Limey In A Bar]Oi! I say we tax their tea 'an fine out or summink! Hold me stout, laddy.[/Limey In A Bar] did you just call me a limey? thats worse than calling me a yankee, and calling someone a yankee from where I'm from is dueling words buddy

LoL, Nah-just taking the piss with Andy. I've got a little creative license, I was born outside RAF Lakenheath when my Dad(s) were stationed there.

Quoted: I was born outside RAF Lakenheath when my Dad(s) were stationed there.

awesome...wait dads?

WTF is so impressive about that video...

Is there any need for that low and slow stall speed shit?

Please explain that shit to me? I know the Russians are quite fond of it..


I think the Mig 35 (aka mig 29m-ovt)  would Smoke it at those games...

Mig 35

Where's the crash?  Isn't that video supposed to end with a crash?

Also, I didn't see the compartment where they store the white flag.  

Pretty good raptor airshow footage;

F22

Suprised the French have not ordered any.  Would help them flee the combat area more quickly.

Quoted: Suprised the French have not ordered any.  Would help them flee the combat area more quickly.

Hard to fit the entire army in a fighter.

Quoted: Quoted: Suprised the French have not ordered any.  Would help them flee the combat area more quickly. Hard to fit the entire army in a fighter.

Quoted: Quoted: I wouldn't be so quick to discount the Eurofighter.  It has a very good power to weight ratio.  Where is Vito? Getting to a dogfight quickly doesn't mean anything in a turning and burning contest.... You can put enough horsepower on a brick to make it fly-just that it will fly. Of course dogfighting might be a dying art with weapons and standoff distances being what they are these days..

Thrust to weight != speed.

Thrust to weight is the ability to recover energy quickly because you have greater acceleration, which is very important in a turning fight. It has little to do with top speed.

Quoted: Eurofighter Typhoon has a foreplane/delta configuration which is, by nature, aerodynamically unstable. The instability of the aircraft is derived from the position of a theoretical “pressure point” on the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. This is calculated from the contribution to lift from each of the aircraft components (the wings, the canards, fuselage etc). If the pressure point is in front of the centre of gravity on the longitudinal axis, the aircraft is aerodynamically unstable and it is impossible for a human to control it. With the Eurofighter Typhoon, in subsonic flight the pressure point lies in front of the centre of gravity, therefore making the aircraft aerodynamically unstable, and is why Eurofighter Typhoon has such a complex Flight Control System – computers react quicker than a pilot. When Eurofighter Typhoon crosses into supersonic flight, the pressure point moves behind the centre of gravity, giving a stable aircraft. The advantages of an intentionally unstable design over that of a stable arrangement include greater agility – particularly at subsonic speeds  - reduced drag, and an overall increase in lift (also enhancing STOL performance). The only plane that will take this on is the F-22, the Rafale is even behind this fighter. The only reason the F-22 will take it is the stealth ability. The people who say the F-16 could take it, well they don't know anything fighter jets

Uh....nice mumbo jumbo......everything you said about relaxed stability (minus the pressure point shift; not sure why that's a good thing) is true for every modern aircraft since the F-16. And didn't the resident defense analysts say the most important maneuverability benchmark these days is transsonic performance? In which case this would render the Typhoon less maneuverable in the transsonic regime.

I thought the French weren't buying the thing after the whole "EFA + carrier = no, lets make the Rafael" debacle?

I know that earlier this year BAE was still behind the JSF for their carrier ops, and not considering the EFA/Typhoon for that role except as a last resort.

I'm just shocked the thing is finally flying and entering production.  I'd be even more shocked if after all that time and money the thing was no better than the F-16s and F-15s we already sell/sold them.

F/A-22 is another matter I'm sure, super hornet would probably give the Typhoon a run for its money as well.

Quoted: Quoted: So in other words if we sent our best Eagle pilot up against the Typhoon...the American would lose? Hmmm...good question.  I suspect the Typhoon might be in a bit of trouble against the Eagle. We are all focusing too much on just the basic airframe.  An effective fighter/attack aircraft (or any other for that matter) is only as good as the sum of ALL the subsystems that make it up.  If any of these are deficient in any way against the projected threat, then the plane, regardless of how fast, maneuverable, fuel efficient, pretty, it is, then the entire aircraft combat system is only as efficient.  Aircraft history is replete with what, at the time, proponents called super planes...that when the final tally came in, were woefully down in certain critical areas making them less than the perfect killing machine. Aircraft design is always a compromise in combining the most important parts of the design criteria.  Possibly the most glaring example of my thesis is the Japanese Zero:  Small, light weight, hard to see airframe; fuel efficient engine, very heavy (For its day now...don't make the mistake of thinking 1944...think 1938!) armament, exceptional maneuverability, exceptionally long operational range, great flying characteristics.  As we all know however, all of these positives came at the price of one great negative:  The Zero was very easy to kill because of its light construction and lack of both armor and self sealing fuel tanks.  While this didn't seem to bother the Samurai pilots, it certainly didn't help the Japanese nation as they lost so many fine aviators early in the war before they began adding these simple mods to their aircraft. I'd be interested to learn certain details of the overall design: 1.  What is the unrefueled range of the plane with normal AAW and strike loadouts? Radious @ 860nm 2.  How many stores points does it have?  What are the loads it can carry at each? 9, plus 4 semi submerged missile stations…all up weapons load @18k 3.  What is the radar RCS at certain bands...such as L, C, S, and X?  All are going to be different.  Lots of straight edges and right angles on that plane.  I'd like to see the numbers from all aspects.  I have some very large reservations about those giant intakes.  GEM is a bitch.  About the same as an F-18, much better than an F-15, the engines are burried in 's' inlets so you can't see the compressor faces. Lots of ram on the inlets and edges 4.  What are the capabilities of the sensor suite?  Does the radar have an LPI mode?   If so, how effective is it?  How about IR looky see?  How good is the EW suite? LPI radar is being test flown, similar to the LPI set in the F-18, IR, best in the business, +2 temp diferential at 60nm, EW is top notch and embeded in the sensors suite 5.  Does the aircraft employ a towed decoy?  If so, is it permanent or a store?Permanent towed… 6.  How does its energy profile picture match up against other aircraft at various altitudes?It can outperform an SU-27 or MiG 29 in all aspects 7.  What weapons does it carry?  How much ordnance/other stores can it hump per sortie?Anything… from AIM-9 to Storm Shadow cruise missiles. 18k lift, max 8.  What is its overall Ao (Operational Availability).  This includes ALL factors such as turn around time,  regular scheduled maintenance, MTBF, MTTR, etc..Low maintenance, quick turn around… lots of push button stuff. Cost of ownership was a key factor 9.  Does it take a master mechanic to fix it or can seaman/airman Timmy do it with say...a year of tech school behind him/her?LRU/BIT… ease of mainenence was a key issue There are more...but I think y'all get the idea. May be a world beater...but I think the jury is still out WRT it's true capabilities.  I do like the thing...its certainly a pretty little plane. Finally...would Boyd like it?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Uh....nice mumbo jumbo......everything you said about relaxed stability (minus the pressure point shift; not sure why that's a good thing) is true for every modern aircraft since the F-16. And didn't the resident defense analysts say the most important maneuverability benchmark these days is transsonic performance? In which case this would render the Typhoon less maneuverable in the transsonic regime.

The Eurofighter Typhoon - A Technical Summary

The Typhoon employs a combined delta canard configuration with a wing area similar to the F-15, and similar internal fuel capacity, yet the aircraft has an empty weight of around 24,250 lb, much like a late model F/A-18C. The excellent empty weight of the Typhoon in relation to the wing size is as much a result of the compact configuration, as it is of the generous use of carbon fibre composites in the fuselage and wing of the aircraft. Titanium canards and outer control surfaces, and Aluminium Lithium alloy leading edges were employed to minimise weight yet achieve high structural strength.

The combined delta canard configuration and 538 ft^2 wing size confer very low wing loading on 50% internal fuel, and are optimised for transonic manoeuvre and supersonic dash performance. The combination of sweep angle and unstable aft CoG is clearly intended for minimising supersonic drag, and is comparable to a classical supersonic interceptor like the Mirage series, but is more modest than the "supercruiser" 72 degree swept inboard wing section of the F-16XL/E.

The Typhoon is unlikely to match the supersonic high G envelope of F-16XL/E due to a lower wing sweep angle, but will have a useful advantage over most teen/teenski series types optimised for transonic turning. In transonic manoeuvre, the automatic full span leading edge slats are used to adjust the wing camber and therefore reduce the lift induced drag at high G characteristic of classical deltas in this regime. Fuselage vortex generators on either side of the cockpit are employed to promote vortex formation at high AoA and low speeds, and thus increase lift.

The paired inlet is optimised for high AoA performance, using forebody flow to promote air ingestion, as well as a boundary layer splitter above the inlet. The combination of vortex lift and inlet geometry used by the Typhoon exploits the same ideas used in the F-16A/C/XL/E.

The loosely coupled canard is intended to provide high control authority at high angles of attack, by placing the surfaces ahead of the main vortices, but also to provide lower trim drag in supersonic flight.

In comparing the Typhoon to established fighters, the aerodynamic design exploits basic ideas used in F-16 family, but combines them with a strongly swept delta and canard configuration to extend the supersonic envelope, although not as aggressively as GD did with the 660 ft^2 cranked arrow F-16XL/E wing. The simpler wing design in the Typhoon in turn required canards to achieve the desired supersonic drag and manoeuvre envelope.

From the perspective of airframe optimisations, the Typhoon is without doubt optimised for its two primary design objectives, which are supersonic BVR interception and close in combat at transonic speeds, with no obvious concessions made to the secondary objective of strike. The low wing loading will confer excellent climb performance for the installed thrust, and the the delta configuration lower supersonic drag, in comparison with the F/A-18. The low wing loading is not optimal for low level strike profiles, but the gust sensitivity will be alleviated by the large sweep angle and the use of artificial stability and canards. The airframe is rated to +9/-3G at an undisclosed combat weight, pylon G ratings have also not been disclosed.

http://www.ausairpower.net/typhoon.html

Can you say 'transonic performance' which is what the Typhoon is optimised for…

ANdy

Quoted: Quoted: I was born outside RAF Lakenheath when my Dad(s) were stationed there. awesome...wait dads?

Let's just say that they were really good friends with a common interest-my Mom.

Actually, swapping and swinging is/was pretty common in military circles. She just couldn't stop. I love my Stepdad, but my real dad and I have a lot more in common and I lost nearly 19 years with him because she ran off with his buddy and took us with them. My Stepdad ended up stationed in Canada after they divorced in LVNV (Nellis AFB) so it was very difficult to find us. He waited until my sister turned 18 and used a private detective to find us, but the official story is that he used the Salvation Army's missing person's program to find us.

Oh well.

Dave

Quoted: Cute, but F-15 > ALL Cheers!

The USAF has been flying 15's for what, 30 years, give or take?

Technology does march on, even in other countries.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Uh....nice mumbo jumbo......everything you said about relaxed stability (minus the pressure point shift; not sure why that's a good thing) is true for every modern aircraft since the F-16. And didn't the resident defense analysts say the most important maneuverability benchmark these days is transsonic performance? In which case this would render the Typhoon less maneuverable in the transsonic regime. The Eurofighter Typhoon - A Technical Summary ANdy

Not saying the Typhoon wasn't designed for transsonic performance (since it was you that I remember harping on that point), just that the post I was replying to was kind of pointless.

Looks like a Delta winged f-5, seems kind of small too...

I guess they might be flown by hoards of european dwarves.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Uh....nice mumbo jumbo......everything you said about relaxed stability (minus the pressure point shift; not sure why that's a good thing) is true for every modern aircraft since the F-16. And didn't the resident defense analysts say the most important maneuverability benchmark these days is transsonic performance? In which case this would render the Typhoon less maneuverable in the transsonic regime. The Eurofighter Typhoon - A Technical Summary ANdy Not saying the Typhoon wasn't designed for transsonic performance (since it was you that I remember harping on that point), just that the post I was replying to was kind of pointless.

My bad!

ANdy

Quoted: Quoted: How many of these are the Euro nations going to produce? 710 firm orders to date… UK 232 Germany 180 Italy 121 Spain 87 Saudi Arabia 72 Austria 18

And this is how American military supremacy starts to slip away, the UK is going to have 52 more EFTs the we are going to have F-22s unless things change, the EU as a total is going to more then twice as many fighters then us. I don't think anyone would argue that the Typhoon is a beter fighter the the 22, but I also don't think that the 22 is twice the fighter of the typhoon.

We need to seriously rethink our aircraft aquisition startegy for the next decade, we can not sustain capability with an ever contracting fleet of aircraft. Anything less then 300 airframes and once the F-15c's start to hit the end of their service lives then we are going to rapidly start to loose our ability for force projection. The one ace in the hole we had was the JUCAS but the fighter mafia in all their wisdom decided to leave that project in the underfunded hands of the Navy.

Quoted: And this is how American military supremacy starts to slip away, the UK is going to have 52 more EFTs the we are going to have F-22s unless things change, the EU as a total is going to more then twice as many fighters then us. I don't think anyone would argue that the Typhoon is a beter fighter the the 22, but I also don't think that the 22 is twice the fighter of the typhoon. We need to seriously rethink our aircraft aquisition startegy for the next decade, we can not sustain capability with an ever contracting fleet of aircraft. Anything less then 300 airframes and once the F-15c's start to hit the end of their service lives then we are going to rapidly start to loose our ability for force projection. The one ace in the hole we had was the JUCAS but the fighter mafia in all their wisdom decided to leave that project in the underfunded hands of the Navy.

Good post. Agreed. IMO (I'm neither an expert nor a customer of Holiday Inn), we need to work on the following:

1. Buy more F-22s and update the new batch (block?) if necessary. It's be nice if we had atleast 50 more Raptors

2. Either keep updating the F-16/F-15/F-18 series (and/or simply build more of them with updates)***OR***stop funding those programs for the most part and dump that money into the fighter that will replace them all: The F-35 JSF.

3. Step up development of drone fighters that would be cheaper to build and maintain than manned fighters. This will be a force multiplier and if we could build one drone for every piloted fighter (atleast) we would be in the catbird's seat in terms of overall numbers.

Call me biased, but I'm not convinced the EF would kick our asses...even if our asses weren't in Raptors.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So in other words if we sent our best Eagle pilot up against the Typhoon...the American would lose? Hmmm...good question.  I suspect the Typhoon might be in a bit of trouble against the Eagle. We are all focusing too much on just the basic airframe.  An effective fighter/attack aircraft (or any other for that matter) is only as good as the sum of ALL the subsystems that make it up.  If any of these are deficient in any way against the projected threat, then the plane, regardless of how fast, maneuverable, fuel efficient, pretty, it is, then the entire aircraft combat system is only as efficient.  Aircraft history is replete with what, at the time, proponents called super planes...that when the final tally came in, were woefully down in certain critical areas making them less than the perfect killing machine. Aircraft design is always a compromise in combining the most important parts of the design criteria.  Possibly the most glaring example of my thesis is the Japanese Zero:  Small, light weight, hard to see airframe; fuel efficient engine, very heavy (For its day now...don't make the mistake of thinking 1944...think 1938!) armament, exceptional maneuverability, exceptionally long operational range, great flying characteristics.  As we all know however, all of these positives came at the price of one great negative:  The Zero was very easy to kill because of its light construction and lack of both armor and self sealing fuel tanks.  While this didn't seem to bother the Samurai pilots, it certainly didn't help the Japanese nation as they lost so many fine aviators early in the war before they began adding these simple mods to their aircraft. I'd be interested to learn certain details of the overall design: 1.  What is the unrefueled range of the plane with normal AAW and strike loadouts? Radious @ 860nm 2.  How many stores points does it have?  What are the loads it can carry at each? 9, plus 4 semi submerged missile stations…all up weapons load @18k 3.  What is the radar RCS at certain bands...such as L, C, S, and X?  All are going to be different.  Lots of straight edges and right angles on that plane.  I'd like to see the numbers from all aspects.  I have some very large reservations about those giant intakes.  GEM is a bitch.  About the same as an F-18, much better than an F-15, the engines are burried in 's' inlets so you can't see the compressor faces. Lots of ram on the inlets and edges 4.  What are the capabilities of the sensor suite?  Does the radar have an LPI mode?   If so, how effective is it?  How about IR looky see?  How good is the EW suite? LPI radar is being test flown, similar to the LPI set in the F-18, IR, best in the business, +2 temp diferential at 60nm, EW is top notch and embeded in the sensors suite 5.  Does the aircraft employ a towed decoy?  If so, is it permanent or a store?Permanent towed… 6.  How does its energy profile picture match up against other aircraft at various altitudes?It can outperform an SU-27 or MiG 29 in all aspects 7.  What weapons does it carry?  How much ordnance/other stores can it hump per sortie?Anything… from AIM-9 to Storm Shadow cruise missiles. 18k lift, max 8.  What is its overall Ao (Operational Availability).  This includes ALL factors such as turn around time,  regular scheduled maintenance, MTBF, MTTR, etc..Low maintenance, quick turn around… lots of push button stuff. Cost of ownership was a key factor 9.  Does it take a master mechanic to fix it or can seaman/airman Timmy do it with say...a year of tech school behind him/her?LRU/BIT… ease of mainenence was a key issue There are more...but I think y'all get the idea. May be a world beater...but I think the jury is still out WRT it's true capabilities.  I do like the thing...its certainly a pretty little plane. Finally...would Boyd like it?

Thank you.  That being the case, the Armed Scientist's comments are all the more important.

Seems to be a fine plane.  

i'm sure there's a reason the Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen all have delta/canard layouts...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Uh....nice mumbo jumbo......everything you said about relaxed stability (minus the pressure point shift; not sure why that's a good thing) is true for every modern aircraft since the F-16. And didn't the resident defense analysts say the most important maneuverability benchmark these days is transsonic performance? In which case this would render the Typhoon less maneuverable in the transsonic regime. The Eurofighter Typhoon - A Technical Summary ANdy Not saying the Typhoon wasn't designed for transsonic performance (since it was you that I remember harping on that point), just that the post I was replying to was kind of pointless.

pointless ? because you didnt understand it  it was a reply to the statements that it couldnt manuver as well at sub sonic as the F16, it can and the mumbo jumbo is why, if you don't understand why the pressure point shift is important maybe you shouldn't be replying in this thread  and that mumbo jumbo is from the typhoon spec sheet

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Thank you.  That being the case, the Armed Scientist's comments are all the more important. Seems to be a fine plane.

It's 'good enough' and good enough is good enough to take out the real world threats, SU-27's and MiG29's.

The F-22 is far and way the best thing in the sky, it's so good, I heard one defence analyst wonder if it was intended to fight the Emperor Palpatines forces rather than the 'Evil Empires'…


Would I identify a weakness in US procurement? Too many planes with overlapping missions.

Realistically, the F/A-18E and F can fill all the 'low end' missions for the Navy, Marines and UAF with ease… the maintenance burden and cost  to fly a gazzilion different subtypes of soemthing like a dozen designs must be enormous!


A Hi-Lo mix of F-22's and F/A-18's hits all the bases and would save a phonomenal amount of money.

At the moment, there is a risk of ending up with planes that cost so much, enough to fulfill the missions cannot be purchased to allow for attrition.

As a for instance, UK practice is to buy twice the number of aircraft you need to allow for attrition losses.

ANdy

Quoted: pointless ? because you didnt understand it  it was a reply to the statements that it couldnt manuver as well at sub sonic as the F16, it can and the mumbo jumbo is why, if you don't understand why the pressure point shift is important maybe you shouldn't be replying in this thread  and that mumbo jumbo is from the typhoon spec sheet

Ah, I see. You copied it directly from the typhoon site. So it IS just press blather.

Intentional instability is old news, it's been done since the 70's. If you think relaxed stability makes the Typhoon a better fighter than the F-16, then you know less than the F-16 fans because, guess what? The F-16 also has relaxed stability!
I don't doubt that the Typhoon is a maneuverable aircraft, but introducing that really adds nothing to the discussion. It's like saying that a Ferrari is faster than a Porsche because one has an internal combustion engine. Civilians really have little to go on to compare the aircraft except the opinions of others, but reciting press kits doesn't help the case.

And what really doesn't make sense is that the site will harp on the benefits of relaxed stability but then say that the aircraft is stable at supersonic speeds.....hence, by their own logic, making it less maneuverable. Perhaps that's necessary due to the supersonic regimen, but why even bring that up? It doesn't seem like a plus at all.

And from that, you concluded that the only advantage that the F-22 has is stealth.

Quoted: Would I identify a weakness in US procurement? Too many planes with overlapping missions. Realistically, the F/A-18E and F can fill all the 'low end' missions for the Navy, Marines and UAF with ease… the maintenance burden and cost  to fly a gazzilion different subtypes of soemthing like a dozen designs must be enormous! A Hi-Lo mix of F-22's and F/A-18's hits all the bases and would save a phonomenal amount of money.

I see the logic in that.

Of the three, which do you think has the most going for it over, say, the next ten-to-fifteen years?

F/A-18
F-16
F-15

completely edited....


Seems to me the most important aspect of a fighter plane is the ability to simulaniously track and engage multiple targets from the greatest distance possible. I thought we owned that!!!

As someone else said, dogfighting is kind of useless now with missles that can be launched and destroy the enemy before you even can see him.... That said, wouldn't the best approach be to upgrade the electronics on the the F/A18 (since they are much newer than the 15/16's) and ensure the F22's can be quickly, easilly, and cheaply upgraded