Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eurofighter Typhoon article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

Contents

[edit] Voice Input

Not sure if this is upside-down Australian propaganda, but it must have taken quite a bit of digging to find it. Under Design we now see: "The Eurofighter includes voice input for everything but weapon launch [46]."

Just because the independent author of a report for the Australian Air force, concerning "Joint Strike Fighter Limitations vs The 1998 F/A-18 Replacement Study” gives a second-hand speculative quote from an un-named personal source in BAE Systems Australia over ten years ago, does not make that statement true. In fact the statement is patently untrue since the range of functions available for use by DVI in Eurofighter is limited, for a number of very good reasons. The second external source quoted (BAE's own website) clearly shows this and thus wholly contradicts the first throwaway journalistic quote.

A less contentious addition might run along the lines of “The use of Direct Voice Input on Eurofighter for critical cockpit functions has long been recognised by a wide range of commentators across the world (46]” 20.133.0.14 14:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

200 DVI words in Trance 1 [1] for example, fuel state, the selection of monitors, radios and navigational aids, or the target selection. --90.187.126.114 16:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If only the pilot could do everything in the cockpit with 200 words. The RAF need employ only readers of The Sun? But still grateful for the magically appearing new reference [47], (and I thought all Wiki edits traceable!) This probably provides a much more accurate (and amusing) summary of Eurofighter DVI. Certainly not just German, or even Norwegian, propaganda gladly. But don’t see the word “everything” anywhere. And as regards DVI vocabulary, size matters, but it certainly isn’t everything! We don’t see outlandish claims for voice input in the Rafale article. But then we don’t see any claims at all. 20.133.0.14 18:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

DVI is not included in initial production Rafales. --90.187.126.114 18:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

- The statement "The Eurofighter includes voice input for everything but weapon launch" is wrong and should be deleted or amended. DVI is not used in Eurofighter, nor in any other military fast jet, for ANY safety critical or weapon critical task. Those cockpit functions which are supported are clearly listed in the new Reference [48] 20.133.0.14 12:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I quite agree with the earlier contributor that Rafale (or even F-35) would not make such outlandish claims for the use of DVI. Just because the range of cockpit functions is limited does not mean that it may not still be a majot workload reducer. In any case, the type of syntax-based speaker-dependent voice systems still in use in fast jets are way behind the types typically used commercailly on the ground. So there is plenty of scope for improvment and extension, IF they prove their worth. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added/deleted material

I added this piece under "operational history".......

  • On 19 June 2005, the Scotsman reported that a Eurofighter trainer (two seater) was 'bounced' from behind by the two F-15E fighters over the Lake District. The US pilots intended to pursue the Eurofighter for several miles and lock their radars on to it for long enough so that if it had been a real dogfight the British jet would have been shot down. But much to the Americans' surprise, the Eurofighter shook them off, outmanoeuvred them and moved into shooting positions on their tails. [2]

- but someone keeps deleting it, who? Source is there, and its certainly relevant, though you can get into a discussion about whether the headline online refers to "official missions.--Financialmodel (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Read the edit summaries in the history. That case was discussed previously and considered unverified. See EF/Archive 1 Disputed Sections (don't reply on archive pages). -Fnlayson (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The source is clear to all "On 19 June 2005, the Scotsman reported that........", whether you refuse to belive the Scotsman or not must be your problem. With the logic used here, no sources can be used. The Scotsman is the source, if people want to know more about the credibility of The Scotsman they can read it here on WIKI: "The Scotsman is a Scottish national newspaper" --Financialmodel (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with Financialmodel. It's sourced with a national newspaper - that's a reliable source if I ever saw one. Perhaps primary sources are lacking, but interpreting and evaluating them could constitute original research - better to let this stand on Scotland on Sunday's reputation - the article makes it quite clear who made that claim. The discussion on the archive seems to boil down to "I don't believe this could happen", much of which was before The Scotsman was cited. --Scott Wilson (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • OK fair enough. But the entry had text copied from article. That shouldn't be done... -Fnlayson (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, good clean ups. I should have done it, but I was too lazy. ;-) --Scott Wilson (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for re-add, and right call to change from it from The Scotsman to Scotland on Sunday Scott Wilson. Also thanks for the "clean-up" Fnlayson. --Financialmodel (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • And now someone deleted it again, who?--Financialmodel (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Please look at the history page (not me, btw). Not-notable seems like a fair reason to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I did try to look up user first few times, all i could see, was that it was done from NY, USA. Now there is a comment and a user: "Removed F-15 "encounter" it happens all the time with combat jets. It is not noteworthy ... " -

"not noteworthy" - I'm sure alot think otherwise. If it happens all the time, why dont you find 3-5 other descriptions of encounters between Eurofighter and XXX planes? At least put a comment and discuss it here, before you just delete again. Its easy to delete, but a lot harder to add. --Financialmodel (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As I have mentioned elsewhere, the Typhoon engagement with F-15E’s over the Lakes District in the UK is reliably attested. What is not reliably attested is the purported Typhoon engagement with an F-22 at NAS China Lake. It’s easy to confuse the two incidents amidst all this Sturm und Drang and the word “Lake” being in both. Whether it is relevant to this article is, of course, another matter – and one for (hopefully less contentious) debate. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I found the Scotsman article and have updated the text to match the contents of that article and use a more neutral tone. For example, the article itself says nothing about which party initiated the dogfight. The previous 'reference' for this story was just a person's name. Personally I think this story does not really add anything to the article and it would be better just to remove it entirely. 79.74.16.67 (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Text of disputed article

Thanks to Mark, we now have the entire transcript of the International Air Power Review article (Issue 20):

Though still a relatively immature platform, Typhoon has already proved to be a hard opponent to beat, so that when a two-seat trainer was bounced by two F-15s during an operational conversion sortie, the Typhoon pilot was easily able to outmanoeuvre his assailants and position himself for a simulated ‘kill’ against both. More recently, there have been repeated reports that two RAF Typhoons deployed to the USA for OEU trials work have been flying against the F-22 at NAS China Lake, and have performed better than was expected. There was little surprise that Typhoon, with its world-class agility and high off-boresight missile capability was able to dominate the ‘Within Visual Range’ fight, but the aircraft did cause a surprise by getting a radar lock on the F-22 at a surprisingly long range. The F-22s reportedly cried off, claiming that they were ‘unstealthed’ anyway, although the next day’s scheduled two versus two BVR engagement was cancelled, and “the USAF decided they didn’t want to play any more.” When this incident was reported on a website frequented by front-line RAF aircrew a senior RAF officer urged an end to the conversation on security grounds.

As is evident, the original poster did copy verbatim text {WP:Copviol} but also made errors, the "surprisingly long range" became surprisingly long rate" which was guessed as meaning a long rate of time, but it really was mis-copied and should have read "range." All of this debate over a completely unverifiable report?! Here is a link to Mark Kaiser's now archived post critiquing it and completely debunking the report. FWIW, this whole exercise was a complete and utter waste of time and energy for all involved. Bzuk (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC).

  • This is what i found at the link you provided Bzuk. I have read the IAPR in full and its a 45 long article (perhaps even 80 since much larger than normal pager size). I read the critique of IAPR provided in the link you provided, and the argument of editors here are much below standard, read this almost funny comment by Askari Mark, on why IAPR isnt usefull:

The F-15 engagement reported is reliably attested to by multiple reliable sources, so it is not at issue. (However, as the Scotsman makes a little clearer, the fighters involved were F-15E Strike Eagles, not the F-15C air superiority version, and it would have been shameful for the Typhoon to have been bested by these heavier, less-maneuverable birds.) In fact, one has to wonder if the Typhoon vs. F-22 report isn’t a garbled version of this event. For this latter, the IAPR article mentions uncited “repeated reports” (which I’ve been so far unable to find online), but then goes on to refer to only the forum website report. (Perhaps the “repeated reports” were multiple acquaintances telling him about the website post?) The author seems to have only secondhand information on the forum – which goes unnamed (just like the “senior RAF officer”). While he mentions that it is “frequented by front-line RAF aircrew”, the original forum post appears to not have been made by someone in the RAF nor a witness to the alleged events – otherwise he would have said so to gain greater credibility. Furthermore, RAF professionals or in-place witnesses would not make the mistake of claiming that the F-22 flew against the Typhoon at NAS China Lake. That’s a US Navy facility, and the US Air Force has its own equivalent facilities. (Both do offer these facilities to the air forces of allied nations for testing that can’t be duplicated in-country at reasonable expense.) Of the knowledgeable people I’ve spoken to, few had ever heard of this allegation and all were all but sure that the F-22 has not (yet) been to China Lake nor has it been flown in mock engagements against the Typhoon specifically or against any aircraft flown by non-US personnel. Of course, one can never prove with 100% certainty that such an event occurred and was highly classified – given how security rules go regarding stealth technology – but it seems unlikely. In fact, it reads more like “something made up on the Internet one day.” As it stands, all we have is a report of a rumor on a web forum about a rumor from an unknown source posted by someone without first-hand knowledge or professional experience. Until there is evidence based on what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources, there seems to be no reason to include the alleged incident at all. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Now compare Askari Mark's comments to the sources i gave you. Comments by Askari Mark should be marked with big warning sign! Let him read this one, you deleted, rate corrected to range, as commented on before:

In 2006 the aerospace/air force magazine "internatinal AIR POWER REVIEW"[1] (IAPR) reported two RAF typhoons had been deployed to USA for OEU trials (Operational Evaluation Unit), and that these Typhoons had been flying against the F-22 at NAS China lake (NAWS China Lake). The magazine reported the Eurofigter Typhoon had performed better than was expected against the US top stealth fighter, the F-22. The magazine wrote that it was no surprise the Typhoon had dominated "Within Visual Range" flight, but the Typhoon had surprised by getting a radar lock on the F-22 at a surprisingly long range. According to IAPR the F-22’s cried off, claiming they were “unstealthed”, and after this the USAF cancelled the next day’s scheduled two vs. two BWR engagements (Beyond Visual Range).

This report has created a lot of controversy. Critics claim the Typhoon have never been near the F-22’s, but before this, on 27 September 2005, Eurofighter GmbH reported that the Typhoons had made their first transatlantic deployment in 2005, as part of 'Exercise High Rider'[2]. Eurofighter GmbH wrote: "Exercise High Rider 10 took place at the United States Naval Air Weapons Range China Lake in California", which is where IAPR said the engagements had taken place.

On 18 August 2006, the BBC NEWS reported: reports suggest that RAF's Eurofighters have flown highly successful missions against the F-22 during recent exercises in the US"[3], but critics claim BBC World just repeats the AIPR source, which they see as a lie in the first place.

Critics argue there is no way the Typhoons could have been able to track the F-22’s in the first place, since the F-22's have been shaped to reduce their radar cross-section, but such problems have already been described by BBC World on December 22, 1997:

“The aircraft is also equipped with an infra-red search and track system (IRST) which will enable pilots to spot the enemy by detecting minute differences in temperature between the target and its background, making "stealth" aircraft visible.[4]

Hardcore critics still argue whether the engagements between the Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-22 have ever happened, but on 24 April 2007 Flightglobal (Flight International) also reported that RAF’s 17 Sqn OEU routinely has deployed two aircraft and around 30 personnel to the USA to operate along US fighters including the F-22[5]. Air Vice Marshal David Walker, air officer commanding 1 Group, which oversees operations of the RAF's strike aircraft fleets, said: “The vast majority of this work is about making sure that the integration of the two platforms is working". Asked how the fighters compare, walker says: "If you want to say that stealth is a determining factor then Typhoon stands second to the F-22. But I think that as we do more work, the Typhoon will more than hold its own. It's the balance of how you use it, rather than what it is”. And to this BAE Typhoon project test pilot Mark Bowman said: "The F-22 is three times the cost, but you would struggle to see any advantage in the cockpit design - the cost is there to maintain stealth, Typhoon is most likely equivalent, if not better.” Financialmodel (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

From the above denial-of-reality diatribe, logic is obviously not Financialmodel’s strong point, so I guess I’d better lay it out simply.
  • I have read the entire IAPR article, too. If you have, then you must agree that the above paragraph is the full extent to which it addresses a putative engagement between a Typhoon and a F-22.
  • As you seem wont to do, you alter arguments and conclusions that misrepresent what other editors did not make. You claim that my point was that “IAPR isn’t useful.” At no point did I ever state that. I made no comment on IAPR as a source; my comments were fully focused on the one article, and in particular, the issue at hand, which is addressed in the article in only one paragraph.
  • You ignore the weaknesses in the article so that you can just assert it is “God’s gospel truth” – apparently because you want to believe it. The fact is that the author of the article doesn’t offer a “report” on such an engagement; he just reports a rumor he found on a web forum. He does not identify the forum. He just says a few front-line RAF aircrew are known to hang there; he doesn’t even say it’s an aviation-related site – it could be a forum for the Home Shopping Network for all we know. He provides no information on the poster, not even to say whether he happened to himself be one of those RAF crewmembers. The poster does not even say whether he had first-hand knowledge (or second-hand or third-hand or just thinks he remembered hearing it at the previous night’s pub crawl). This is the “quality” of the “source” you are taking as “gospel” – and using to condemn anyone who doesn’t agree as some American patriot vandal.
  • Your link to the BBC article is dead, but anyone familiar with how news organizations write knows that “sources suggest” means they’ve heard rumors, but haven’t (as of press time) been able to find a knowledgeable source to verify them. When they do, they write something like “According to an RAF officer who participated in the tests, …” or “According to a senior MoD source, …” – assuming that the source must remain confidential. It may come as a surprise to you that repetition of hearsay doesn’t not make it more “true”. All this BBC article does is verify that the rumor exists – a trivial point that no one here is debating (except you).
  • Another point no one is debating (except, again, you) is that the Typhoon was at NAS China Lake in 2005. I’ve already provided the same information elsewhere in these debates. Apparently, you are unaware that the “NAS” stands for “Naval Air Station” – which means it is a US Navy facility. The US Air Force has its own facility – and one much better equipped to test stealthy aircraft as well as to conduct such exercises in secret – at Nellis AFB. Indeed, a pair of Typhoons are reported to have been at Nellis – but after the date of publication of the IAPR article, and, therefore well after the forum post about the supposed China Lake engagement.
  • As I have pointed out elsewhere, the Eurofighter GmbH says it only had a single (two-seater) Typhoon at China Lake in 2005 (along with a Tornado and a Harrier). So who is more likely to be right – the Eurofighter GmbH or some unknown poster in an unidentified online forum?
Although Financialmodel smears the debate all over the place, the issue at hand, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is simply whether or not the “report” of a Typhoon “besting” an F-22 at China Lake in 2005 is adequately attested to. Fundamentally, the attested source is an unidentified poster on an unidentified forum. According to Wikipedia’s guidance on what constitutes “reliable sources”, web forums, blogs, and chat rooms are generally unreliable sources. Certainly, someone can start up their own wiki on “Aerospace Rumors”, but the standards for Wikipedia are higher. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tendentious editing

As is evident by the continual reference to disputed and unverified commentary repeated countless times, now with the dismissal of the report by Mark Kaiser categorized as "below standard", the F-22/Typoon incident represents Tendentious editing. From the Wikipedia defintion on tendentious editing, here are some of the characteristics of this type of editing (see: [3]:

    • Repeated reversion of the “vandalism” of others;
    • Constant repeating of the same argument over and over again, without persuading other editors;
    • Assuming that no other editors will assume good faith, no matter how often reminders are given;
    • Suspicion or accusing other editors of “suppressing information”, “censorship” or “denying facts;”
    • Continual challenges to the reversion of personal edits, demanding that others justify their actions;
    • Deleletion of the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first;
    • Inability to properly frame talk page discussions and threads;
    • Campaigning to "Right Great Wrongs!" FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC).

If anyone is doing "tendentious editing" here, its you Bzuk. The reason for repeated arguments is the repeated deletion of cited additions by moods here, like you and Downtrip to name a few. You tried to argue I was some banned member "wikizilla", but that turned out to be "Downtrip", read [4]. You give Mark Kaiser (aka Askari Mark) a lot of credit, but is he a source in itself? Sure he might be an engineer, but for who? Lockheed Martin? Facts are very few are allowed to make any changes in these articles here Eurofighter Typhoon and F-22 without the reversal by you, Askiri Mark or Downtrip, infact I have not been allowed to make any without the repeated reversion, for which reason im reduced to repeating myself the talkpage. If i try to change anything and restore it after your repeated reversion, the article is locked. Now who is doing the "Tendentious editing" here? --Financialmodel (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continued arguments

Can someone show the disputed edits at the top of this RFC please, so someone like me who has had nothing to do with this debate can see what content it is that some parties do not want in the article. It's a bit confusing at the moment. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, the problem with the entire discussion "string" was that the users need to post only to the bottom of the page into the appropriate section. In that way, the discussion continues so that new readers can follow along. I have tried to group some of the relevant sections/sub-sections together for readability and relevance. Although I cannot make a definitive appraisal, I believe the last two statements by (Talk) and myself, sum up the ongoing discussion. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC).
Ok, thankyou for pointing me in the right direction, as far as I can tell (or what Askari Mark said) the argument is whether or not a source saying a Typhoon bested an F22 at China Lake in 05, is reliable or not. It'd be nice if someone could show me this source please. However I did try to find it, I looked at this edit made by FinancialModel and found that only this reference mentions a Typhoon being better than an F22 (and does not give any details). However I will reserve my judgement until someone will be kind enough to show me this "unreliable" source please. Ryan4314 (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryan, the entire quote is found above in the section "Text of Disputed Article" which is derived from a blog(forum) in which an unknown source has made the claim. See: link to Mark Kaiser's now archived post critiquing it. In short, the issue was brought up, discussed, dismissed as "gossip" and then re-introduced countless times by an editor who refused to abide by consensus and asked for an RfC bvecause of "bias" by other editors. The RfC is still ongoing, but other then the original poster, no other editor has supported the introduction of this quote. FWIW, the same editor has caused a similar situation at the F-22 Raptor and Fourth generation jet fighter articles and associated talk pages wherein other claims that the Eurofighter Typhoon is a better, more cost-effective fighter than the F-22 were made, which smacks of fandom. In all cases, a consensus request was issued, but the editor in question refused to accept the consensus decisions. The issue then becomes not a "content" question but a case of "Tendentious editing" that is disruptive and indicative of a "problem" editor. Bzuk (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC).
I see, yes I was beginning to get a sense of that myself, well consider this my vote to oppose putting this information in, until it gets a proper reliable source etc. I hope your consensus comes through and then you can see about blocking this person if their behaviour continues. On a finishing note I'd like to recall a story I read on here a while ago, about some high ranking American who was at one time the only person to fly both a Typhoon and a F-22, he said their is no real comparison, as both are designed to do completely different things. Also please don't respond to this opinion, I make a point of not watching or checking back on RFC's in order to avoid wikistress. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Bzuk said: "the same editor has caused a similar situation at the F-22 Raptor and Fourth generation jet fighter articles and associated talk pages wherein other claims that the Eurofighter Typhoon is a better, more cost-effective fighter than the F-22 were made, which smacks of fandom"

- please provide a direct link to these statement of yours, Bzuk...........All what i have said is still there, except for a post in the Fourth generation jet fighter article, deleted by Mark Kaiser (Askari Mark) - talk about "Tendentious editing". You are welcome to restore this statement of mine, but Mark Kaiser (aka Askari Mark) will probably remove it again, unless you archive it. Now where are you working as an engineer Mark Kaiser (Askari Mark)? Lockheed martin?--Financialmodel (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delays - technical

The loss of DA6 and the T1 emergency landing at RAF Coningsby are hardly comparable events and in any case should really be relocated to a new sub-section on incidents/ accidents. Yes, the DA6 crash added "delays" to the Flight Test programme, but nothing compared to the major programme delays caused by political discussion and repeated project re-sizing. Is there an argument for consistency between articles on different military fast jets? Wittlessgenstein (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The emergency landing could probably be just removed unless there's something important about it. Like it resulting in a redesign or set back flight testing, etc. As it is written now, I don't see how it is related to a delay. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Radar Cross Section Claims

How can a source from 1989, long before the jet even took flight be considered accurate when making claims about such a classified subject as Radar Cross Section.Downtrip (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong year and wrong ISBN for this Reference! The fourth edition is published in September 2001!--HDP (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The 2001 edition is just a reprint of the 1989 edition. It still is based on speculation from a non peer reviewed source. Deletion is warranted, rewording and verification tag is certainly in order.Downtrip (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Then is Doug Richardson a clairvoyant Then he wrote about Le Bourget 1999 and over the maiden flight of DA7 in 1997 and about the first bomb drop with DA3 in 1999. Over the rise from 154 to 180 Eurofighters for Germany in 2000. The 2001 4th edition is clearly not the first edition from 1989! He wrote: At the 1987 Paris Airshow a revised full scale mockup showed some oft refinements made to the disgn in the final stages of the project definition work. The most obivous was the redisigned ventrale intake... but the final configuration is a slightly curved "smiling" design... What is your Problem? The RCS [5]RAM coatingRAM coating is sure lower than 1987. Or increase the RCS for the F-117 or F-22 with the years?! You should not MANIPULATE referenced entries!--HDP (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Non peer reviewed source. Downtrip have learn a new word. I think ~99% in Wikipedias references is not a peer reviewed source. How many peer reviewed sources in "fourth generation jet fighter" or in F-35 or F-22? Exact 0,0%! --HDP (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

HDP, please remain civil and also please check the following Wiki guidelines and policies before you go reverting any additional changes. Wikipedia:RSUE, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:PROVEIT. Many of your sources and claims come up short in tese areas, especially in the radar reduction section. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.Downtrip (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation

  1. Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.
You are unable read and understand foreign languages?! This is the typical US mentality. How many languages gives around the world? ~6500! You must accept that not all speak english and not all source written in english! You can also hardly expect from the Ausitrian Parliament, that they translate only for you their reports to English. --HDP (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like that's handled now. Translation links were added to 2 references anyway. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
A friendly note to all concerned. This is Wikipedia, you may have thought it was a different place. It isn't; in this Wickwacky world, people treat each other with respect and use appropriate language. We do not do earth-shattering work here and it will not appear in the local or international media. We all have to have a perspective about what we are doing – working collaboratively to create a unique reference source. (Period, that's full stop.) FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC).
EADS Knows LO Is that useful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HDP (talk • contribs) 17:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Too late to be useful for Eurofighter I'd say and, by default, probably also for any other current fast jet. Interesting nonetheleess. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone just deleted an addition I made. I am an inexperienced user so please bear with me. I'd just like to say that I think some context around the claims about "stealth" is needed because for most people even myself as an aerospace engineer, the practical implications about stealth don't speak for themselves. My addition addressing this was indeed "not referenced" however it was only there to dispel popular (in American fora at least) myths that the F-22 is some type of ghost aircraft that can't be seen. I feel that an encyclopaedia needs to address commonly held misconceptions. Maybe I am patronising the readership however. On the roll-back comment in the history, it is stated that low-observables have been sufficiently explained already, however it seems to me that the practical application thereof isn't really addressed at all.

Having said this I now realise that it might be better to discuss these issues in a separate article and that such an artle probably already exists and so I was probably wrong to add something as I did. I do ask myself what sorts of references are expected when actually a principle, essentially of common-sense is being explained for the benefit of those who have possibly only heard the (extensive) hype on the matter.

Incidentally I've browsed the other comments here and I think it's important not to be naive and to realise just how intent many people are on making sure the Typhoon doesn't look too good in the eyes of the world. In the end it can only be tested in battle. There's a lot of propaganda about what "would happen if" and I think we (or you, if I'm not welcome) need to be fully on-board about that. Princeofdelft (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, indeed there is an article about stealth, I have added some links to it, I hope you won't have a problem with that people. Princeofdelft (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • The stealth aircraft link is fine provided it is not already linked in the article (not likely). There's also a related stealth technology one. Your comments better fit in those articles vs. one on the Typhoon. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 27-million-euro order for radomes

Multi-million-euro order for Jenoptik's Defense and Civil Systems Division 09.01.2008 - The Defense and Civil Systems division of the Jenoptik Group received an approximately 27-million-euro order for radomes in late December 2007 from BAE Systems of Great Britain. ...

http://www.lifepr.de/pressemeldungen/jenoptik-ag/boxid-28168.html Royzee (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Watch the copyright violation there. I left a sample and the link. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Emergency landing" 14/01/08

Operational history: 14 January 2008, RAF Typhoon "system failure".

The rapid descent of this aircraft by such a large margin suggests an aircrew oxygen system failure. This would be a project first - up to now the MSOC and HEA mask assembly have been very reliable. As there was no accident, or even incident, however, CAA will not be involved and BAE Systems will not be obliged to formally investigate. So there is unlikely to be any official statement as to the cause. The fact that it was a two-seater suggests that the problem may have been confined to one of the cockpits. But it seems likely that without the very public "sonic boom" this particular event would have gone wholly unnoticed by media and project alike. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I think the incident is non-notable even with the sonic boom. The cause of the shutdown may not be though. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with Fnlayson. MilborneOne (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, if no futher details are forthcoming over the next week or so, this event should be deleted. There are many reasons why aircraft may need to make sudden or severe manoeuvres, some of them for technical and some for operational reasons, but this dose not make them necessarily significant events of the project history. But don't forget we are still awaiting any definitive explanation of the Rafale crash at Corrèze in December 2007 with the loss of Captaine Moriuser, although the latest suggestion has been "spatial disorientation at the end of an air combat simulation exercise" Wittlessgenstein (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I concur that this event doesn't appear notable. It's not like when the F-22 cockpit jammed and the pilot had to be cut out. This just appears to be "normal" equipment failure. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canard and RCS

A canard has a better RCS as a conventional tailplane through the cessation of the typical diherdral reflector (conventional rudder and elevator acts as cateye!)<Dough Richardson Dihedral Reflector p.31> Therefore, it is not the stupidest idea to separate rudder and elevator each from the other for a better RCS and for the tail aspect RCS is that much better. What is not there can not be bad for stealth!--HDP (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Two leading edges on two different planes gives you more RCS not less. Tail planes on the same plane as the wing are "hidden" behind the main wing's leading edge. Anyhow the entry is from a peer reviewed source. Much better than the picture book by Doug Richardson that you have been using. --Downtrip (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Has the Virgina tech a RCS range? No, they have not! The have neither Gripen, Rafale nor Typhoons RCS have the mesured! Neblett, Metheny and Leifsson beliefe that a canard is always bad for low RCS. The have no backup reference for this claim. A bad RCS behavior shown a canard and a forward shift wing together. When I look on the RCS picture from the Typhoon than is the canard invisible for radar. The leading edge is sweept and scatters the Radar wave from the front hemisphere away. A wing shilds your elevator not for traveling waves, prevent not a corner reflector (Tailplane) and shilds not sidewards. --HDP (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Your self-professed Peer Reviewed source is only a lecture script and not a peer reviewed Publication, with some serious mistakes!

"Generally have a small moment arm to VT, requiring larger area." What? BS! The EF is a long coupled Canard! The Canard is smaller, that is better for a low RCS. --HDP (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Please stop reverting sourced material in order to make a point. Why do you think there is flight control software to control the canard such that it minimizes RCS in the first place.--Downtrip (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have altered the citation to a fuller source note: "Neblett, Evan, Metheny, Mike and Leifsson, Leifur Thor. "Canards." AOE 4124: Configuration Aerodynamics. Department of Aerospace and Ocean Engineering, Virginia Tech., 17 March 2003." Although not necessarily a peer-reviewed article, it is an acceptable reference source and includes a comprehensive bibliography.

More importantly, the edit warring that has been engendered by this submission has to end now. Take any further discussion to this page only. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

Donwntrip should first learn what a peer review is. Before he use always this two words! Furthermore:"Peer review failures occur when a peer-reviewed article contains obvious fundamental errors that undermines at least one of its main conclusions." This shown me that this source fail in a peer review and come to wrong conclusions. And AIAA, for example, is not peer reviewed! There can you find excellent waste. The bibliography referenced not the RCS claim. A tail elevator caused a greater wing for compesating the downforce of the elevator! One leading edge more, for the F-22 to soften the pain of the diherdral reflector. Unlike the F-22 has the Eurofighter two elevators and can optimise the RCS on demand. Your F-22 can't fly with zero AoA. The leading egde of the F-22 is in a head-on still visible. The best RCS has tailless plane like the B2, four leading egde lesser as a F-22. An empennage is always bad for RCS. --HDP (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

These are valid points and can be introduced in a systematic way. There is adequate room in a commentary to provide a counter-point which then introduces an opposing viewpoint that can be attributed to a source. From my reading of the original source, a "blanket" statement was made that "Canards have poor stealth characteristics." Further, the notes stated: "As with any other configuration decision, use of a canard offers trade-offs. The desired performance characteristics drives all configuration decisions, some of which are well-suited to a canard, while others are not." While your arguments appear to have substance, you may have to find suitable verification. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
Bzuk is right, the edit warring needs to stop. We can disagree respectfully about sources, etc., without personal attacks.
I’m obliged to recuse myself from discussions of stealth-related topics, but I can say that both of you are mostly correct and not in ways that are mutually exclusive. Canards do offer some RCS advantages over traditional empennage arrangements, but they also have some disadvantages of their own.
As for the AIAA, its technical journals are formally peer-reviewed, and its general-audience publication, Aerospace America, is fact-checked and essentially peer-reviewed after the fact as any mistake it publishes will result in a lot of critical letters to the editor – after all, most of its readership are aerospace engineers, both professional and student. Since its material is intended for a general audience, it can be more “accessible” to the average Wikipedia audience than a very technical journal, so I wouldn’t throw it out out-of-hand. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
AIAA Papers are not always peer reviewed, [6] is therefore the best proof.--HDP (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, as to the example you presented, an acknowledgment is made in the first pages: "The authors are grateful to Prof. Dr. Dr. A. Resch, Director of the Institute of Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaften, Leopold-Franzens Univ. Innsbruck, Austria for providing access to Heim's legacy and his hospitality. The authors are grateful to Prof. Dr. T. Waldeer for numerous discussions, and T. Gollnick and O. Rybatzki, Univ. of Applied Sciences, Salzgitter, Germany for producing some of the figures. This research was partly funded by the ministry of Science and Culture of the State of Lower Saxony, Germany." This attribution certainly passes the test of having peer reviews. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
Indeed, conference papers usually aren't formally peer-reviewed (whether the AIAA's or anyone else's). Of course, the fact that material is being presented to one's professional peers and the presenter's professional reputation can suffer from a poor product does tend to encourage them to be much, much more rigorous than, say, something written in a blog. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Only, such an institution do not exists at the Leopold-Franzens University, Insbruck. [7] "The Heim theory did never pass a rigorous peer reviewing. In 2002 the authors J. Hauser and W. Droescher started to extend the former Heim theory which a reviewer (below) considered to be almost (!?!) error-free. For a version of that new theory they got "the" AIAA research award 2004. That formulation pretends as if there is only one AIAA award a year. However, there are more than 50 kinds of such awards a year. And the award under consideration here is the Best-Paper Award of just that Technical Committee, Nuclear and Future Flight TC, a member of which is J. Hauser himself.";)--HDP (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Switzerland Replacing its F-5s

Switzerland Replacing its F-5s article discusses potential bids including Typhoon.

Reckons price per plane would work against this in favour of BAe's other offering the JAS-39 Gripen . http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/switzerland-replacing-its-f-5s-04624/

Royzee (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI full show Spanish AF Tiffie at RIAT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AwZo_2hzqE Royzee (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, please stop calling it the "Tiffie"!! :) Worst nickname ever. Mark83 (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL it's just my sly humour as I think there's merit in calling it Typhoon II especially now it has more ground attack in its role like its WW2 ancestor which was lovingly nicknamed the Tiffie. Royzee (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Eurofighter Typhoon Logs over 35,000 Flying Hours

Reports on the web say that by the end of December 2007 the Tiffie has logged a grand total of over 35,000 flying hours.

Germany had just begun QRA operations at Neuburg.

http://frontierindia.net/eurofighter-typhoon-logs-over-35000-flying-hours/

This piece mentions test aircraft - six Development Aircraft retired with 8 still flying. Royzee (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this information is perfectly reliable and true, and represents quite an achievement in itself. The big ramp up last year obviously came from operational deployment of the first batch aircraft at Nation's Air Force bases and most of these hours would have been familiarisation/ cross-training flights.
Of the seven original DAs, one (DA6) fell out of the sky and the other six retired more gracefully. The 7 IPAs and 1 ISPA now in use are essentially Production standard plus some telemetry, i.e. nothing major can now be changed. (In fact the ISPA is essentailly an RAF production unit loaned back to the manufacturer to keep the flight test programme on track).
Of course, total raw flying hours means far more for Squadrons where reliabllity and cost-effectiveness are the key. During development the number of flights, which ideally should each be as short as possible is a better metric ansd even then it's important to try and combine as many test points as possible into each single flight. So "total flying hours" is really mixing development apples with operational oranges. Also mixed in are the special long distance flights for special testing/ operational proving/ marketing and so on (the flight test pears, I guess!). Wittlessgenstein (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Unit Cost

i don't necessarily think there is something wrong with the unit cost of the Typhoon, or the F-22 and Rafale for that matter.... but i personally do not believe the unit cost of the 3 can be so similar... one source i find says one thing, another gives a completely different unit cost... etc etc...

therefore i propose we have a set standard for how we measure unit cost on all military jets (but in particular western ones) on wikipedia... for example, do we factor in development costs for the programme? do we include other factors such as upgrades into the unit cost? do we include infrastructure upgrades (ie if the X sells Y 50 aircraft, but also provides the infrastructure upgrades for Ys airfields and training programmes for Ys pilots too)

also export price v "actual" unit cost. for example it is possible for us to have a pretty good guess at the eurofighter's export cost buy using Al Yamamah and the Austrian export deals. but since the F-22 isn't up for export and the rafale as far has no customers we can't really guess at their export price. now, what i mean is when Ford sell me a car i doubt it is worth anywhere near what the sell it to me for, they want to make some money. i would imagine BAE Systems and the other companies involved in the other programmes, like the F-22/Rafale would provide the Eurofighter/F-22/Rafale at a much lower cost to their respective nations air forces than they would to Saudi Arabia.

using cars as a point too, i pay extra for a car with air con than a car without... would country X pay more than country Y if their aircraft had a superior air to ground capability

see what i mean, sorry if that sounded like a confusing rant but there are so many factors to consider. i think we should all agree upon a set standard of what we include in unit cost calculations now and use that from now on...

Pratj (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It is WP:AIRCRAFT project policy to list flyaway or marginal cost for military aircraft's per unit cost. We use the best, most current data available. Sometimes that's not so easy to find. Also, keep in mind the total program costs and how long an aircraft model has been in development. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
In point of fact, it appears never to have actually made it into WP:Air/PC, but rather only Template:Infobox Aircraft. I've remedied that oversight. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • True, more of a standard practice. Linking to the essay implied it too. Thanks for adding the wording. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

so, including development costs, the eurofighter is $122mil, whereas the F-22 is $137 mil? bear in mind the intended procurement numbers too. how can this be when i hear phrases such as "3 times as much" in regards to the F-22 from BAE test pilots?

I think there should be more clarification and exact guidelines... if not explain where the figures came from for all of the respective aircraft...

btw have raised this issue in wikiprojectaircraft Pratj (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I’d be wary of what any company’s test pilots say about their competitors’ products – they are as much marketing agents as any other salesperson for their company. In fact, I’ve yet to see what data that statement was based on (if any); I’m willing to bet it wasn’t apples-to-apples. I do agree that the prices should be cited. I’m afraid that won’t settle much, though. It’s my experience that people will only settle for what makes their favorite plane look the best and its competitors the worst in comparison. I will be interested in seeing what specific clarifications and guidelines you believe would help – we waste enough time recycling these debates time and again. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
"Unit production cost" may be an illusory concept, based always, as it should be, on eventual production out-turn before all development costs may be dissipated/ factored out. Even then, out-of-country "off-set" deals notwithstanding (as BAE enjoyed with Al Yahmama), true cost may never be fully determined without account has been taken of depreciation and obsolesence. It is becoming increasingly difficult to determine "fly away" cost when "through life support" is part of the equation. Additionally, with Eurofighter Typhoon, the sums are more difficult as, in real terms, the percentage GDP for four different nations need to be accounted for. What seems to be at issue here is "unit price". And who is to say (or more likely admit) that one country can pay less than another, for a multitude of different reasons? Wittlessgenstein (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
@Askari Mark: I agree with almost everything you say. i only used BAE test pilots as an example as it seems like they must really be making it all up if they claim the f-22 is 3 times as expensive when in actuality it may only be a few million $s more. no, my aim is that we all agree upon a set standard of unit cost, but more importantly, we enforce it....

i have just found a pdf from Defense-Aerospace.com (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf) which has made calculations on the unit costs and program unit costs of most western fighters in service... i may make some edits based on these calculations.

they have explained a lot of their methodology and sources. and have again listed the problems with making these estimates. one i did not think of is that the US does not include domestic tax on their unit costs whereas the european nations tend to add Value Added Tax to theirs.Pratj (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes Pratj, that study makes very interesting reading. In terms of cost per kilo, only F-15E is cheaper than caviar and only F-22 is more expensive then pure gold. But I note the cost of Eurofighter varies depending on which of the partner nations you ask. It seems also that the authours neglected to ask how much Typhoon costs Italy at all.
But I am still a little confused between cost and price. For most goods there is a cost to the producer to manufacture and a price paid by the buyer to obtain. In the case of military jets, however, it seems that we pay twice - first to develop and build and then to buy for our airforces. Where does the profit margin for the manufacturer's shareholders fit into the equation? Wittlessgenstein (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the first point, I think the RAF's are the most expensive. e.g. they're the only air force to employ the full DASS features. Regarding the 2nd there is data available I think for cost vs. price - i.e. including development cost per aircraft vs. just price per aircraft. Mark83 (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Pratj, for Typhoon there are certainly National Fit differences for DASS elements, also for the whole of the LDP programme I think. Italy have even said in the past thet they do not want a dual-role Typhoon, whicb would save a lot of air-to-surface costs. But I would expect the most significant differences might arise in terms of weapons fit. Any fighter is not much use without fully integrated stores, and some of these may have to be sourced from outside the consortium nations (i.e. US) and their price may thus still be under discussion. And I note that the report does indeed give unit costs including development and for comparsion also gives unit price for the purchaser. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It is a shame Italy's units are not included. however maybe this is due to lack of "reliable" information from Italian sources? who knows? anyhow, these are of course all estimates, which may indeed explain the differences. but also the "spec" of the various nations aircraft is also a factor. these estimates also include VAT too Pratj (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it’s unfortunate that the Italian and Spanish prices have not been made as readily available as the British and German aircraft. Since the former are lower, there could then be a somewhat lower pro-rata price that could be quoted. There is a “basic” Eurofighter cost for each tranche that is common to all four partners, and then on top of that are additional costs incurred by each customer for “over-and-above” requirements.
While the Defense Aerospace (DAE) estimates are an interesting and perhaps commendable attempt by amateurs, they are just that – estimates by amateurs that give meaning to the phrase “A little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing.” It’s rather ironic that they compare prices to caviar and gold, but without realizing that much of their estimates are actually based on things as different as apples and oranges and kumquats. I don’t have the time to fully critique it here, but would discourage anyone from trying to build estimates using their plausible-sounding methodology.
If the DAE estimates were accurate, the cost of exported aircraft would be cheaper than “domestic” purchases; in fact, the opposite is true. In the end, the VAT part of the price is mostly irrelevant. After all, these are taxes paid to the partner governments – to wit, to themselves – when they buy their own aircraft. To the degree that order shares, production shares, and investment shares are imperfectly aligned, there may be some net gain or loss among the partners, but it will probably be trivial as closely negotiated as the Eurofighter contracts have been to date. Export costs, on the other hand, will include higher profit levels than for domestic sales, possibly a measure of R&D recoupment, loads to balance out any offsets, possibly higher financing costs, and “fees to brokers and consultants” – which can be quite eyebrow-raising on sales to Saudi Arabia. (There’s a really big reason the Saudis were going to drop their plans to order Eurofighters if the UK fraud probe wasn’t shut down.)
To answer Wittlessgenstein’s question, the profit margin is included in the price. Typically, the producer’s own national government strictly limits the profit it can charge; of course, this is part of the reason why the manufacturers are so eager for foreign sales since they can charge higher margins. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that these companies do not book profit on the early sales. They have to recover their R&D expenses and tooling expenses – their own investment – before the product actually becomes profitable. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Excellent points Askari Mark. Although re. the point of Saudi order being dependent on fraud inquiry being shut down: I think it was more to do with preventing publication of fraud in the Al Yamamah sales than uncovering any "new" fraud in relation to Typhoon sales. The Times claims that the RSAF is paying exactly the same per aircraft as the RAF. Mark83 (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Askari Mark. I agree with all your points. Mark83 I think you are also right, but just because the SFO has given up after a friendly nudge from Tony, doesn't mean that the US Congress will do the same, especially since most of the alleged freebies were across the pond in the "front garden" of BAE's biggest competitors. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Askari Mark. If only everybody was a straight thinking as you, wikipedia would be a better place. anyhow, i take it that the flyway cost is calculated from the Saudi deal, is there any calculations on the flyaway cost in regards to the Austrian deal. btw, in regards to the F-22 which i am sure most of you contribute too (i know you will say "raise it there" but still), is there any explanation to the massive fluctuations in the listed flyaway cost from official US sources, and why it seems the lowest cost is the one always listed? Pratj (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

anyhow, i have found that the flyaway cost for the Eurofighter was 62 mil euros (2003) for the austrian deal. is there anyway that this can be incorporated/mentioned in the article and compared with the Saudi cost... Pratj (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would you want to use numbers from an older and smaller deal? The Saudi number is readily available, most recent, and it is for a sizable order.--Downtrip (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliments! I have the advantage of being a (non-sales) aerospace professional whose job involves getting past the sales blather and in between the lines to uncovering “ground truth”. I have to recuse myself from making cost entries, per se, but I can advise. For one thing, I can safely assert that $122.5M is by no means a flyaway cost. It’s far too close to a UPC. Compare this with the UPCs in the infobox of a recent version of this article. The amount quoted for the Austrian deal is much closer to what I’d expect a FAC to be.
Any sale to the Saudis is a “special case” and should not be used to estimate unit costs in general. Although there may not be any fraud for the SFO to find in the al Salam deal, it is still structured to accomplish the primary objective of the Saudi royals and their allies who profit tremendously in these deals. These end up being considerably overpriced because that’s how the national wealth gets spread around the most influential members of the Saudi government and economy. The brokerage and consulting fees are easily 2-3 times that for a normal deal. Those fees – estimated by some experts as on the order of 30% or more of the total program – are cover for their laundering of significant chunks of the national wealth into their private accounts. The problem for the Saudis in al Yamamah had little to do with fraud; if the SFO investigation had gone forward, it would have ended up exposing this intricate web and thereby destabilizing the House of Sa’ud’s precarious grip on the government.
As for the range of prices reported on the F-22, I will indeed there have to refer you to that talk page, and you can start with my (final?) rebuttal to FinancialModel. Beyond that, the huge range of prices quoted – from $120M to $300+M – is because different reports are measuring different kinds of costs (see my essay on the topic) and people who don’t understand what they’re talking about misunderstand (or misrepresent) what they’re telling people the F-22’s cost is. The main reason WP:AIR calls for using FACs or UPCs in the infoboxes is because they’re closest to what most laypeople think of as being the cost; also, they’re much more available than the alternatives and minimizes confusion by using “whatever” cost(s) editors may choose to list. Basically, it’s the “KISS principle” at work. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

why don't we list the flyaway and UPC? i know that the flyaway is the preferred but the cost is misleading for those seeking to make comparisons (which everyone seems to want to do)... i just think that although some people in the past may have been wrong weith accusations of outright bias, it seems often people just pick the information they want and use the cover that it is the most recent. most recent does not mean necesarily mean most accurate or representative. surely more information is better? Pratj (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Combat Planes Releases Eurofighter Typhoon For FSX

News for FS fans (not me) Eurofighter Typhoon for Microsoft FSX adds the latest multi-weapon air superiority platform to the latest and greatest civilian flight simulation. With two versions of the Eurofighter, including the single seat fighter and the tandem trainer, and the most detailed physical model yet seen on the PC

Added eight detailed military bases, including RAF Leeming, Boscombe Down, Coningsby, Rostock-Laage in Germany, Moron de la Frontera in Spain, Caselle in Italy and Rygge in Norway for good measure. Your Eurofighter comes in the liveries of five nations: Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Austria with a variety of squadrons represented for each nation; a stealth "Blackbird" livery, courtesy of Just Flight an active Tornado and C130 at many bases..

More info and pix at:

http://www.fspilotshop.com/product_info.php?products_id=1479

Chocks away! Royzee (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not a pound for air to ground

Despite all the talk about the Tiffie being an air superiority fighter/interceptor it seems genuine plans are being laid to make it a bomber as well. Flight International has an interesting article about plans for training aircrew. Has some other interesting points too such as operational history and whether or not the plane will make its combat debut in the only likely UK warzone, Afghanistan. We can but hope they regain some sort of peace over there before the Tiffie gets its chance. More money wasted no doubt. Maybe there are still some ex-Jaguar jocks around who can pitch in.

It ends with a salutary point that the RAF's first Typhoon qualified QWI course for multirole pilots when it starts in 2009, will be the first of its type since it retired its McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantoms (in?).

See: UK to trial multirole Typhoon training syllabus, but Afghan debut in doubt Royzee (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I believe the EF has been described as a multirole fighter for some time. With avionics and aircraft costs now, new fighters and other aircraft will be able to do as many roles as reasonably possible. So this doesn't seem like a big deal. I think ground attack(er) would be a better way to describe it since "bombers" have been generally larger and focused on that job. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The official line is "swing role" and has been for some years: [8]. The main bone of contention seems to have been getting all four partners, but particularly Italy, to buy-in to the concept to an equal extent. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

With the Tornado it was a bit clearer and even then they turned it into something else - probaly the first time a 'bomber' has been turned into a 'fighter' (interceptor - ADV) since the Mossie. Its successor is now going the usual route as per the F16. That made a surprisingly good attack plane . The Tiffie isn't really going to be able to succeed without moving with the times. BTW my use of the term 'bomber' is in part due to my inability not to be slightly sarcastic about the whole thing. Royzee (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Typhoon Meet' - First Time All Together

It has been all over the news so worth noting here.

For the first time, all four Typhoon core Air Forces from Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK combined their skills for a mutual exercise at Morón Air Force Base, near Sevilla, upon invitation of the Spanish Air Force'. Quite a bit of good info here. And let's hope something factual comes out about Tiffie vs F16 etc. See: http://www.avionews.com/index.php?corpo=see_news_home.php&news_id=1087035&pagina_chiamante=corpo%3Dindex.php

Also, Eurofighter Typhoon pilots are being put through their paces in Cornwall. See: http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144125&command=displayContent&sourceNode=232510&home=yes&more_nodeId1=232470&contentPK=20089615

[edit] PICTURES: Eurofighter delivers final Tranche 1 Typhoon

Flight Intnl has some nice pix and info on this March news:

Over half the 34,000 flight hours logged by the multinational fleet were by the RAF

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/03/27/222492/pictures-eurofighter-delivers-final-tranche-1-typhoon.html

http://www.eurofighter.com/news/20080325_lastTR1.asp

Also, former test pilot General Giuseppe Marani, Commanding General Air Command (Squadra Aerea) of the Italian Air Force, flew the Eurofighter Typhoon at the conversion unit 20 Gruppo at Grosseto on March 19, 2008. Pictures on the Italian Air Force Homepage: www.aeronautica.difesa.it See:

http://www.eurofighter.com/news/20080327.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royzee (talk • contribs) 08:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wheels-up landing at China Lake

28 April 2008: "A Royal Air Force Eurofighter Typhoon has been damaged in an incident while landing at the US Navy’s China Lake weapons test range in California, the UK service has confirmed.

...The pilot did not eject from the aircraft, which came to rest on the runway, and was not injured in the mishap.

..remaining fleet of almost 50 Typhoons ... has not been grounded, and “there is no suggestion of airworthiness being compromised..." [9]

Not notable in itself, unless a trend starts to emerge? An incident at a remote location more difficult to investigate quickly and quietly of course. Surprising this found its way to press so soon? Wittlessgenstein (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering, did you get the wheels up part from another article? The flightglobal.com article mentions the nose gear was up in the 2006 incident. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
1. Air in the system. Reason -->Tool not purchased.--HDP (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
RAF pilot crash-landed £69million fighter jet after 'forgetting to put the wheels down'--HDP (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's not get nose wheel failure confused with landing gear non-deployment. Same UCS sub-system, but separate units with different risk profiles. The Mail On Sunday headline seems to be jumping the gun somewhat (and it's not even Sunday yet). Wittlessgenstein (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks User:Fnlayson, for sp and missed ref closure. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, this incident happened "around 25th April 2008", so its appearance in the press was not that swift. BOI has been convened. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of comparable aircraft

I feel there is a need to review the consensus reached as regards the list of comparable aircrafts. The consensus is a bit old and needs to be revised to meet the current scenario.The only aircraft agreed upon at that time was Rafale.The prime reason for the consensus was because of unnecessary and waste of time discussing the comparison of Gripen and typhoon.As SAAB has unvieled its latest Gripen Demonstrator,click here there is scope for discussion because the new Gripen possesses a new package of avionics and higher weapons payload capability.Besides there are other aircraft such as Mig-29K/OVT/M as well as the latest varient like Mig-35 which should not be ignored. Daredevil555 (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I know its very subjective but there has to be some way out, I mean its not completely ignorable. As regards the concesus I dont mean its outdated completely all that I mean is there are new aircraft being developed after the consensus reached, like the new Gripen demo being developed and proposed for sale to India and Norway. I am not aginst nor in favour Gripen or Typhoon, all that I want is neutral comparison. Daredevil555 (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • If someone has a better idea that stablizes the content there (limit back & forth changes), I'd like to hear it. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as the Gripen goes - the F-16 is not listed as comparable to the F-15E. Although the Gripen and Typhoon are not identical respectively, they are analogous. Even with the more powerful engine and increased fuel capacity (thus range), there is still a gulf in specs between the Gripen and Typhoon. I don't know enough about the new radar and avionics to comment on those.
I toyed with the idea of trying to get a consensus on listing the Rafale at least, as it is pretty much the comparable aircraft. However I've returned to my original opinion that it's not worth it on the basis of a simple cost/benefit analysis - masses of time debating each aircraft suggestion at the expense of other improvements to the article vs. a very small and not particularly useful addition to the article. Mark83 (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, the reason there was no consensus on the question is that some people thought "comparable" meant "has similar performances", instead of the less absurdly restrictive "is interesting to compare to this other contemporary design". Thus there could never be a stable version. So despite the fact that the list really improves the reading experience of those browsing through the encyclopedia, if "comparable" cannot be defined in a precise, non equivocal way, there is no point in trying again.CyrilleDunant (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turkomachia

Several turkish webforums accuse the greeks of swapping a Eurofighter with the russians in exchange for S-300 SAM launchers. This is quite steep an accusation, I mean was there even any prototype EFA-2000 in Greece? They cancelled the order for sixty due to their very high cost 2004 olympic games, obviously leaving no hardware for russian sale. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cockpit - g-protection

The link to the "Libelle" suit (Ref 69) seems to have now disappeared, as has the English translation of Ref 70. Could anyone suggest any replacements? Wittlessgenstein (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The quick fix is to use archived versions of those links on Archive.org. The english translation link in ref 70 is working for me now. Maybe the site was down earlier. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Here a link to the inventor. Libelle Multi G Plus --HDP (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that's actually a better link. I realise that the original language of Ref 70 is German, but would a direct link to translation be feasible/better? Not sure on wiki policy here. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Radar Cross Section

Someone has changed the radar cross section material. Please be aware that this material has been the subject of huge debate and long discussion, and the current material is the result of delicate compromise. Therefore I would ask that you discuss changes you want to make here before making them.

The text can change, and I'd love to see improvement, but please discuss it here first. Kitplane01 (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The only removed was a sentence that says "Although these measures reduce the radar cross section of the Typhoon, the Typhoon is not a stealth aircraft." That very same thing is stated at the top of the Radar signature reduction features section. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You're right. The way the software prints the difference made me think you had taken out much more.Kitplane01 (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It was me just for the record. The first edit removed "Although these measures reduce the radar cross section of the Typhoon, the Typhoon is not a stealth aircraft. " due to the very first sentence: "Although not a stealth fighter, measures were taken to reduce the Typhoon's radar cross section (RCS), especially from the frontal aspect."
The second edit removed "While a reduction in radar cross section is desirable for a non-stealthy aircraft like the Typhoon, it should be noted that when any aircraft is carrying external stores its overall radar cross section is greater due to the stores themselves having a significant radar cross section. Even if the stores themselves are stealthy, interference between the external store and the aircraft will result in an overall increase of radar cross section for the aircraft.[6]" because it was basically a repeat of the earlier "The Typhoon is not capable of internal storage of weapons, which increases its radar cross section but allows for more and larger stores."
Don't take this the wrong way Kitplane01 (it's not said in a bad temper or anything) - but it's very simple to check the page history to see the changes that were made, and given my honest edit summary the reason should have been clear. A delicate compromise doesn't excuse huge redundancy. Mark83 (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


The Eurofighter is not a stealth aircraft, however it is a low radar detection aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.186.55 (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eurofighter Vs F-35

Is the Eurofighter better at air-to-air combat and the F-35 better at striking ground targets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.186.55 (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that the purpose of this talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article. Not for general questions related to the content.MilborneOne (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latest developments, etc

We may add the latest developments to the "Operational history": Typhoon proves its air-surface capability RAF Typhoons have been declared "combat ready" for the A2G role, during Green Flag in the US Typhoons dropped a total of 67 munitions, comprising 43 Paveway II bombs, eight enhanced Paveway IIIs and 16 1,000 lb (454kg) free fall weapons.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/TyphoonProvesItsAirsurfaceCapability.htm

Also the exercise "Typhoon Meet" may also be worth mentioning, see: http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=156130&command=displayContent&sourceNode=242285&home=yes&more_nodeId1=156139&contentPK=20184446

http://eurofighter.com/news/20080313eng.asp

Additionally it may be sufficient to change the "supercruise" speed from 1.2 towards 1.5. See.:Auch ohne Nachbrenner-Einsatz ist ein Marschflug mit ca. Mach 1,5 möglich (Supercruise). http://eurofighter.at/austria/td_lu.asp (official EF GmbH homepage for Austria)

Also Top Speed should be Mach2+ and not Mach2.

Greetings —Preceding unsigned comment added by HTG2000 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Eurofighter GmbH lists just Mach 2.0 here: Eurofighter Performance Data, Design -Fnlayson (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A2G section/Singapore--- RCS section/Captor Radar

Would it be good to delete the remarks made about the Singapore competition in the "Air-to-ground capabilities" section? I honestly don't know what it is doing there, the unsuccessful campaign in Singapore is already explained in the "Exports" section. The mentioned Singapore remarks don't say anything about the Eurofighters current/future A2G capabilities. Should be deleted IMO. Thoughts?

Same for the remark about the Captor Radar in the "Radar signature reduction features" section. The characteristics of the Radar aren't related to the RCS of the plane. Should be deleted. Maybe we should make an own section for the Captor-Radar? Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HTG2000 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The radar seems related enough to be OK there. The CAPTOR has its own article, so I don't think it needs a separate subsection with more details. Parts of Singapore air-ground paragraph do seem out of place. Can't find a better place for that to go however. The paragraph could probably be summarized better to shorten at the least. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking about a shortened summary for the Singapore paragraph. I will post it here in order to get some feedback.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HTG2000 (talk •contribs) 18:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
AESA radar solution now for Typhoons--HDP (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


I re-wrote the "Air-to-ground capabilities" section, added some info and shortened the Singapore-§. Thoughts?

The Typhoon has always been planned to be a multi-role fighter with robust air-to-ground capabilities. Earlier than scheduled the RAF integrated the "austere" air to ground capability, based on the Rafael/Ultra Electronics Litening III laser designator and the Enhanced Paveway II/III LGB.[7] A more comprehensive air-to-ground attack capability including Paveway IV, EGBU-16 bombs and a higher degree of automation will be achieved for all partner nations with the Phase 1 enhancements currently in development.[8]

The absence of such a capability is believed to have been a factor in the type's rejection from Singapore's fighter competition in 2005. Back then it was claimed that Singapore was concerned about the delivery timescale and the ability of the Eurofighter partner nations to fund the current capability packages.[9] With the planed Phase 2 enhancements the Eurofighter GmbH hopes to increase the Typhoon's appeal to possible export customers and to make the aircraft more useful to partner air forces in the future.[10]

I removed some extra spaces above. The wording looks fine to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so I added my rewritten "Air-to-ground capabilities" section, I hope everybody is pleased with the wording and given sources. I may change some words for better understanding later on.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HTG2000 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meteor missile/ Performance

Is the § about the Meteor missile in the "Performance" section really useful there? The Meteor is already mentioned in the "Armament" section and I don't know how its related to the direct performance of the plane. Maybe we should remove it. Thoughts? --HTG2000 (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)