How about Typhoon for U.S. Military?

[Zaphael]

Originally Posted by Scorpion82

All in all we can some it up quite short and simple. The Typhoon is a multirole fighter with an emphasis placed on air to air designed to suite the requirements of the participating European airforces. It doesn't suite the US military requirements as they are different.

Yeap. If the USAF wants something that can fly off runways, its got the F-35 and F-15E+ options to go for. If the Navy wants something that jumps off decks, it'll have the SuperHornet and the F-35s to look forward to.

About the Superhornet's slow and tight turning capabilities, its got a lot of nose authority alright. However, I think it may actually turn out pretty ugly for the SH if you put it in a phone booth with a Typhoon. The Typhoon can handle slow and tight turns as well as the Superhornet while retaining a power advantage. The Hellenic Air Force pilots who flew against it in mock air battles can attest to its low speed handling and sheer power.

[Bonza]

Originally Posted by Zaphael

Yeap. If the USAF wants something that can fly off runways, its got the F-35 and F-15E+ options to go for. If the Navy wants something that jumps off decks, it'll have the SuperHornet and the F-35s to look forward to.

About the Superhornet's slow and tight turning capabilities, its got a lot of nose authority alright. However, I think it may actually turn out pretty ugly for the SH if you put it in a phone booth with a Typhoon. The Typhoon can handle slow and tight turns as well as the Superhornet while retaining a power advantage. The Hellenic Air Force pilots who flew against it in mock air battles can attest to its low speed handling and sheer power.

Helmet mounted sights and AIM-9X/ASRAAM will make such a dogfight a bloodbath for both sides, regardless of who has the turning advantage. If you get seen, you'll have a missile shot up your rear end. Not that the Tiffie is ever likely to tangle with a Super Hornet...

[golden]

[Again I'm not sure as to your reasoning - why would they want Typhoon as a strike replacement when the F-35 is going to be in service? It doesn't offer anything over US aircraft in the strike role that I can see. You're right about the increasing relevance of UAVs and UCAVs. It will be very interesting to see what happens in the next decade in that regard.[/QUOTE]

BONZA,

I thought the subject was whether the U.S. should buy the TYPHOON. In my blog, I pointed out that most fighters are now being using in the attack mode, not as an interceptor. Of the three Euro fighters, the RAFALE is the only one that is carrier capable. It is also strike/attack oriented, so it would be useful now, without waiting for any "future tranches which may never come".
.
As far as whether the U.S. should buy it, I see not justification for any of canard planes. None offer any real advantage over the F-16 and F-18 in the attack/tactical bombing assignment.

The TYPHOON'S claim to fame is that it is the "BEST INTERCEPTOR YOU CAN BUY" with the obvious point that no one can buy the F-22 besides the U.S.A.F. Even JAPAN was turned down and they could have afforded it with a buy large enough to have allowed a larger U.S. purchase.
Since the TYPHOON is still unproven in the fighter role, I think it is an arguable claim.

GOLDEN