F-16.net

Well the Typhoon is Europe's answer. How do you think it compares with it's rivals?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcFZcF17GJk

Its a lot like the F8F, built as its era was coming to a close. Its the best 4th aircraft ever designed. Problem is, any opposing 5th generation aircraft were to enter service, it would very quickly become ineffective.

It would be a fair guess perhaps, that Typhoon has at least another 10 yrs of sufficiently effective deterrence value, on top of the couple yrs exploited already (4.5/4.5+ jets will be frontline for years to come). It will depend on how up to date and comprehensive its systems are upgraded and how up to date it is armed; thus keeping the jet relatively modern. But the airframe and platform's effectiveness itself is valid for some time to come, as a stand-alone, stop-gap and complement to more modern generational platforms (manned and unmanned) soon to enter to scene.

peterb wrote:Well the Typhoon is Europe's answer. How do you think it compares with it's rivals?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcFZcF17GJk

It compares fairly well with its rivals, that being 4th gen fighters but being a 4th gen fighter it of course suffers from all the problems they do such as a large RCS, external weapons, mechanical scan radar etc etc.
Unfortuantly at the end of the day Typhoon is really nothing more than a 'teen' series fighter in its design philosophy and really not much more of a performer either despite what Euro fanatics try to claim.
Its use is pretty much limited to a low tech IADS threat and Typhoon is not really useable in a high threat environment making it an essentially defensive aircraft for use over friendly airspace, eg the North Sea or UK mainland in my nations case.
I know someone will pop up and claim "b..b..but Typhoon carries cruise missiles and needn't go into enemy airspace" but those people are rather misinformed about the usefullness of cruise missiles when hunting time critical targets or simply taking out low value targets that a cruise missile is complete and utter overkill for, eg a tank. Typhoon also cannot realisicly perform offensive counter air or escort missions either over anything more than a low threat IADS environment which once again limits its usefullness and value in its primary air to air role.

In my opinion we were stupid in the UK to go for an aircraft that offered nothing that the Teen series of jets offered us decades before Typhoon ever saw service except for some minor performance improvements.
We ended up with what could be decribed as a decades late Teen era fighter which is constrained by its poor RCS standards which of course I know are fairly good on paper but once you've hung your weapons off it it once again becomes a beacon for all to see.
All in all Typhoon was a good jobs program but as a combat aircraft it was a couple of decades late and by the time it arrived the game had changed.

shep1978 wrote:It compares fairly well with its rivals, that being 4th gen fighters but being a 4th gen fighter it of course suffers from all the problems they do such as a large RCS, external weapons, mechanical scan radar etc etc.
Unfortuantly at the end of the day Typhoon is really nothing more than a 'teen' series fighter in its design philosophy and really not much more of a performer either despite what Euro fanatics try to claim.
Its use is pretty much limited to a low tech IADS threat and Typhoon is not really useable in a high threat environment making it an essentially defensive aircraft for use over friendly airspace, eg the North Sea or UK mainland in my nations case.
I know someone will pop up and claim "b..b..but Typhoon carries cruise missiles and needn't go into enemy airspace" but those people are rather misinformed about the usefullness of cruise missiles when hunting time critical targets or simply taking out low value targets that a cruise missile is complete and utter overkill for, eg a tank. Typhoon also cannot realisicly perform offensive counter air or escort missions either over anything more than a low threat IADS environment which once again limits its usefullness and value in its primary air to air role.

In my opinion we were stupid in the UK to go for an aircraft that offered nothing that the Teen series of jets offered us decades before Typhoon ever saw service except for some minor performance improvements.
We ended up with what could be decribed as a decades late Teen era fighter which is constrained by its poor RCS standards which of course I know are fairly good on paper but once you've hung your weapons off it it once again becomes a beacon for all to see.
All in all Typhoon was a good jobs program but as a combat aircraft it was a couple of decades late and by the time it arrived the game had changed.

Oh dear all combat aircraft suffered from "problems" since stores were invented, a shame and no aircraft except for the mighty Raptor or Lightning II is going to be a piece of junk, unusable in any conflict.

Edit:
I forgot the Typhoon is ofcourse nothing else than a jobs programme, an F-16 with 10 times the prices and a "couple" of decades late. We all know that fully integrated DAS, sensor fusion, NCW capabilities, that kind of MMI and avionics were all available to the upper US superfighters back in the 70s.

Scorpion82 wrote:Oh dear all combat aircraft suffered from "problems" since stores were invented, a shame and no aircraft except for the mighty Raptor or Lightning II is going to be a piece of junk, unusable in any conflict.

So you claim the Typhoon can operate in a high threat or even a medium IADS environment? Well you'll have to excuse me while I snort with laughter if you do believe that.
The worlds moved on and so have air defence systems and Typhoon is, like it or not extremely vulnerable to such systems where as the systems you deride so much, the F-22 and F-35 are believe it or not able to operate in the face of and confront such modern air defence whilst enjoying a great deal of protection due to their designs.
You can keep yammering on about how super Typhoon is all you like but few are as convinced as you. Conversly the jets you so willingly deride are being sought after by many nations. The F-22 was wanted by those who could afford or hoped they could afford it but for obvious reasons no sales where made and the F-35, well thats wanted by many many nations which speaks volumes about the potential of the jet, infact it is far more wanted by various world airforces than the Typhoon if i'm not mistaken which again speaks volumes.
Face it the Typhoons day over the modern battlespace has been and gone just like that of the teen jets.

shep1978 wrote:So you claim the Typhoon can operate in a high threat or even a medium IADS environment? Well you'll have to excuse me while I snort with laughter if you do believe that.
The worlds moved on and so have air defence systems and Typhoon is, like it or not extremely vulnerable to such systems where as the systems you deride so much, the F-22 and F-35 are believe it or not able to operate in the face of and confront such modern air defence whilst enjoying a great deal of protection due to their designs.
You can keep yammering on about how super Typhoon is all you like but few are as convinced as you. Conversly the jets you so willingly deride are being sought after by many nations. The F-22 was wanted by those who could afford or hoped they could afford it but for obvious reasons no sales where made and the F-35, well thats wanted by many many nations which speaks volumes about the potential of the jet, infact it is far more wanted by various world airforces than the Typhoon if i'm not mistaken which again speaks volumes.
Face it the Typhoons day over the modern battlespace has been and gone just like that of the teen jets.

You read a lot within a few sentences. So how many multilayer IADS are operated by likely threat nations, how many stealth a/c are operated by any potential threat nation within the next 2+ decades to come? No one is disputing the advantages of stealth, but you wont sent a single aircraft into a well defended area just on good luck. Claiming the aircraft is entirely useless is a bit exeggerated like those dumb claims such as the teens provided everything 2 decades ago. But fine make claims you can not sustain and then ressort to accuse people for claiming things.

Scorpion82 wrote:You read a lot within a few sentences. So how many multilayer IADS are operated by likely threat nations, how many stealth a/c are operated by any potential threat nation within the next 2+ decades to come? No one is disputing the advantages of stealth, but you wont sent a single aircraft into a well defended area just on good luck. Claiming the aircraft is entirely useless is a bit exeggerated like those dumb claims such as the teens provided everything 2 decades ago. But fine make claims you can not sustain and then ressort to accuse people for claiming things.

How many nations may be operating an IADS capable of taking down Typhoons in the future is something i haven't counted, however, you can be sure the number of those nations grows with each year or two that passes, so, the number of countries that a Typhoon or similar 4th gen fighter can operate over is being limited more and more. For example if Iran does gets its claws on S-300 systems as promised there goes another nation Typhoon is sadly next to useless operating over or in nearby airspace to, Iran is a nation that is Typhoon operators currently take the threat of very seriously I should add.
Pretty much all that is needed to counter a nation that operates Typhoon is time, money and a few calls to Moscow to arrange to purcahse some modern air defence systems and your all set to be pretty much immune from any airforces that operate the Typhoon.
The MOD's and airforces of many many various nations around the world know fully well that external weapons and a non stealthy airframe are NOT the way to go for the future if they wish to remain serious about taking the fight to any potential enemy, which is something which you seem to be unable to grasp.

Also, inspite of Typhoons slightly better performance in the energy game vs teen fighters I don't buy it that it adds anything new above and over current teen series of fighters, bar an IRST which of course could be added if reqiured.
Can you to tell me what makes it so special in that respect as non of what you have listed so far convinced me.

shep1978 wrote:How many nations may be operating an IADS capable of taking down Typhoons in the future is something i haven't counted, however, you can be sure the number of those nations grows with each year or two that passes, so, the number of countries that a Typhoon or similar 4th gen fighter can operate over is being limited more and more. For example if Iran does gets its claws on S-300 systems as promised there goes another nation Typhoon is sadly next to useless operating over or in nearby airspace to, Iran is a nation that is Typhoon operators currently take the threat of very seriously I should add.
Pretty much all that is needed to counter a nation that operates Typhoon is time, money and a few calls to Moscow to arrange to purcahse some modern air defence systems and your all set to be pretty much immune from any airforces that operate the Typhoon.
The MOD's and airforces of many many various nations around the world know fully well that external weapons and a non stealthy airframe are NOT the way to go for the future if they wish to remain serious about taking the fight to any potential enemy, which is something which you seem to be unable to grasp.

Also, inspite of Typhoons slightly better performance in the energy game vs teen fighters I don't buy it that it adds anything new above and over current teen series of fighters, bar an IRST which of course could be added if reqiured.
Can you to tell me what makes it so special in that respect as non of what you have listed so far convinced me.

And you believe that a handful of S300s, which aren't the very newest SAMs as well are going to defeat any decent equipped AF? There are a lot of theoretical assumptions, which aren't even based on factual evidence either. No one is going to sent one or a few aircraft out to the blue and hopes they RTB safely. As said before I don't dispute the advantages of stealth, but it's somewhat exeggerate to claim that every aircraft in the world, spare the VLO/LO designs is next to useless.

It's quite funny how everyone has no problem to accept claims for the F-22s upper superior performance, but regarding those bad evil european aircraft it's out of the realms of possibility.
Pilots seem to think different and I couldn't care less what you believe.

You claimed the Typhoon offers nothing which wasn't available to the teens 2 decades ago and I listed up a few things which were definitely not available. Changing arguments again?

Scorpion82 wrote:
And you believe that a handful of S300s, which aren't the very newest SAMs as well are going to defeat any decent equipped AF? There are a lot of theoretical assumptions, which aren't even based on factual evidence either. No one is going to sent one or a few aircraft out to the blue and hopes they RTB safely. As said before I don't dispute the advantages of stealth, but it's somewhat exeggerate to claim that every aircraft in the world, spare the VLO/LO designs is next to useless.

It's quite funny how everyone has no problem to accept claims for the F-22s upper superior performance, but regarding those bad evil european aircraft it's out of the realms of possibility.
Pilots seem to think different and I couldn't care less what you believe.

You claimed the Typhoon offers nothing which wasn't available to the teens 2 decades ago and I listed up a few things which were definitely not available. Changing arguments again?

A handful of S-300 type systems or, shock horror, even more modern air defence systems would most certainly cause any Typhoon pilot to have a very bad day, to deny that is most niave of you. Also, my first post in this thread cleary shows that i think it is a good air defence fighter when operating in a benign environment such as the North Sea so it does improve national security of its owner nations. and I never claimed Typhoon useless alltogether, just useless as a tool of foreign policy in terms of being able to strike a well defended target unless it uses cruise missiles which as I stated is far from ideal for many situations.

As to the F-22 performance being accepted by me, well yes it is but that's irrelevent here though i have to pull you up and ask just where i said Euro citizens were "evil" (as you imply) and as for Euro jets being rubbished by me; well I simply pointed out that we missed the boat over here in that we designed conventional fighters with external missile carrage and non stealthy airframes whilst the writing has been on the wall for decades now that stealth is THE way to go. It's hardly my fault we Euro's ended up with aircraft that are extremely suceptable to SAMs when we could have took a different, admitidly more risky path and designed a true stealth fighter as it was and still is within our capability, it probably wouldn't have even cost that much more and the benifits in times of conflict would be priceless. As it is we blew it and created a 'super teen fighter' which wasn't to bright in my opinion.

You are missing the point with my comparison to typhoon and teen fighters, my point was that Typhoon essentially offers nothing new over the teen fighters and of course Typhoon is more advanced then the 80's era Teen jets were but they have upgraded and in some cases upgraded to rival the Typhoon, see Golden Eagle's as an example. We in the Uk could have bought an upgraded F-15 AND had it in operation a decade before the Typhoon, it could than have been kept up to date (just as the typhoon is being kept up to date right now with its mech scan radar needing to be replaced soon) It would have worked out more cost effective and the end result would be no different to the user, in theis case the RAF.
Again I have to ask what does the Typhoon offer right now that teen series jets don't have? Nothing seems to be the answer except for a higher price tag and alot less less A-G usefullness.
Anyway, why are you even responding to my posts seeing as you said "I couldn't care less what you believe" ?

shep1978 wrote:A handful of S-300 type systems or, shock horror, even more modern air defence systems would most certainly cause any Typhoon pilot to have a very bad day, to deny that is most niave of you.

Could but it's not a must. Look no one will sent a single aircraft, particularly non stealth a/c into a well defended area. Any such operations would be carefully prepared with certain aircraft types (Typhoon or not) being just a part of a larger warfighting machinery. I don't say that a stealth aircraft wouldn't be a better choice to attack well defended priority targets in the first days of a war.

Also, my first post in this thread cleary shows that i think it is a good air defence fighter when operating in a benign environment such as the North Sea so it does improve national security of its owner nations. and I never claimed Typhoon useless alltogether, just useless as a tool of foreign policy in terms of being able to strike a well defended target unless it uses cruise missiles which as I stated is far from ideal for many situations.

Well it certainly depends on the threat's capabilities and scenarios. Current Typhoon customers won't fight an enemy on their own, but as part of a larger multinational force. The aircraft could well be used to provide air cover once the most threatening ADS are destroyed and could attack other ground targets, perform reconaissance etc.

As to the F-22 performance being accepted by me, well yes it is but that's irrelevent here though i have to pull you up and ask just where i said Euro citizens were "evil" (as you imply) and as for Euro jets being rubbished by me;

I said evil european "aircraft" not citizens, but what I intended to say was that people dismiss any claims of superiority in this or that area for european aircraft like the Typhoon, while any claims about US fighters are taken as gospel truth. Not that I don't acknowledge the performance of the F-22 for example, but I acknowledge the same for the Typhoon in the areas it deserves it.

well I simply pointed out that we missed the boat over here in that we designed conventional fighters with external missile carrage and non stealthy airframes whilst the writing has been on the wall for decades now that stealth is THE way to go.

Well a stealth fighter like the F-22 would have been out of reach at that time, for costs alone. Europe required a cheaper and more versatile platform. Neither RAF, Luftwaffe, Aeronautica Militare Italiana, nor the Ejercito Del Aire are the USAF. People seem not to be aware/or forget of the european requirements and the backgrounds for the development of these aircraft.

It's hardly my fault we Euro's ended up with aircraft that are extremely suceptable to SAMs when we could have took a different, admitidly more risky path and designed a true stealth fighter as it was and still is within our capability, it probably wouldn't have even cost that much more and the benifits in times of conflict would be priceless. As it is we blew it and created a 'super teen fighter' which wasn't to bright in my opinion.

For what reason should the europeans have designed an F-22 equivalent, even if they had the money at hand? The F-22 is unquestionably the most capable aerial fighter in the world and it is a useful asset to strike well defended targets, but it's also the most expensive fighter ever designed and a great portion of its development, procurement and operating costs is consumed by the stealth characteristics, the aircraft is unlikely to need for more than 10% of its service life if that much at all. The F-22 production is capped at 187 airframes and the aircraft isn't going to be sold to anyone. The USAF afforts that luxary to have the ensurance it has a potent weapons system for the worst case becoming the unwanted reality. So how is the F-22 going to be relevant or how useful would it have been to develope an equivalent? Eurofighter customers who want a first day strike capability go for the F-35 or possibly stealth UCAVs which is certainly more useful, though an all out F-35 fleet might not be to cost effective either.

You are missing the point with my comparison to typhoon and teen fighters, my point was that Typhoon essentially offers nothing new over the teen fighters and of course Typhoon is more advanced then the 80's era Teen jets were but they have upgraded and in some cases upgraded to rival the Typhoon, see Golden Eagle's as an example. We in the Uk could have bought an upgraded F-15 AND had it in operation a decade before the Typhoon, it could than have been kept up to date (just as the typhoon is being kept up to date right now with its mech scan radar needing to be replaced soon) It would have worked out more cost effective and the end result would be no different to the user, in theis case the RAF.

If the F-15 would be more viable is questionable and the costs aren't necessarily lower. The latest F-15s aren't really much cheaper to procure and they are most likely more expensive to operate. Let alone the loses with regards to the european defence and aerospace industries capabilities and sustained expertise, jobs etc.

Again I have to ask what does the Typhoon offer right now that teen series jets don't have? Nothing seems to be the answer except for a higher price tag and alot less less A-G usefullness.

It's the combination of performances and capabilities which provides the Typhoon with a certain level of superiority in AA, sure the aircraft is expensive and currently lacks adequate AG capabilities, but it wasn't meant to be a strike/attack aircraft in the first place. I could say the same about the F-22 its expensive and lacks the AG capabilities of an F-16 or F-15E...

I think the European governments considered it important to develop the technology, from the point of view of gaining the knowledge, actual production and not having to rely on overseas procurement. The different air forces had different requirements so compromises were made. It also created a lot of jobs and cemented the relationships between the manufacturing companies. Tornado is a good aircraft and so is the Typhoon. Future aircraft of this type will obviously have to incorporate stealth technology though.

Good assessment, Peterb. I think the current logic at least, is to hypothesize a future Euro mix of the latest 4.5 gen, F-35 and Euro-designed LO UCAV?

Scorpion82 wrote:
I forgot the Typhoon is ofcourse nothing else than a jobs programme, an F-16 with 10 times the prices and a "couple" of decades late. We all know that fully integrated DAS, sensor fusion, NCW capabilities, that kind of MMI and avionics were all available to the upper US superfighters back in the 70s.

No they did not have it in the 70s. The American fighters had similar and in some cases superior performance compared to Typhoon in the 70s. I would point out to you that "fully integrated DAS, sensor fusion, NCW capabilities, that kind of MMI and avionics" are all things that updated teen series fighters either also have now or can be added as an upgrade if necessary.

They also have something very important that Typhoon does not. Several mature, fully integrated AESA solutions, and fully funded development spirals. How many of those Typhoons are going to get Pirate and a helmet=t mounted sight? How many of those first batch of Typhoons will quickly become obsolete because the first batch was fielded without full capabilities and probably will not be upgraded due to lack of funds?

Typhoon was a great jobs program but an utter failure as a fighter. You have plance that due to cost has drained military budgets and is in need of upgrading from day one. They will be nothing better than second tier fighters come 2020 and gate guards 10 years thereafter.

Typhoon would have been a great plane if it was fielded 15 years ago at a price that was affordable.

I thought this was funny!