Eurofighter Cost At 20 billion pounds and growing

[DarthAmerica]

Radar:

Below is my assessment of the inferiority of the CAPTOR vs more modern technologies and the adverse effects on the Typhoons.

In the next few years there will be a number of upgrades to the systems software till Final Operational Capability is attained. Following this a number of hardware upgrades are planned. These involve changing a number of both the shop replaceable items and line replaceable units. These upgrades will focus on improving resolution and ECCM capabilities. The next upgrades will see a switchover to off-the-shelf components. Even with these improvements there are a number of fundamental weaknesses in the CAPTOR's design such as; relatively slow scanning speeds compared to newer technology arrays, relative ease of detection, effects on RCS, etc.

Source:
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/sensors.html

-Acknowledgement of RELATIVE slow scanning speed compared to AESA/ESA

-Ease of Detection when in operation

-Adversely affects the RCS of the aircraft

-Vulnerable to jamming

-Cost, both maintenance and procurement

-Improved resolution. A vague statement but probably in regard to NCTR or ground mapping/target aquisition

-Limited ability to interleave modes of operation and simultaneous target processing

These flaws will take extensive redesign and/or a different radar altogether to correct. Not a small task and very significant indeed. In my opinion this is perhaps one of the most significant weakness of the Typhoon when compared to other fighters of the 3rd or 4th generation equipped with AESA/ESA radars.

************************************************** **************************

SUPERCRUISE:

Definitions, discriptions and graph:


http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/Transonic_Flow/TH19.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic
http://roland.lerc.nasa.gov/%7Edglover/dictionary/content.html
http://roland.lerc.nasa.gov/%7Edglover/dictionary/t.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transonic

http://aerodyn.org/Drag/Gifs/drag_rise.gif

EADs and Eurojet claim supercruise at M1.2-M1.3(depending probably on external config) which is clearly in the TRANSONIC region. A futher claim suggest an engine upgrade to allow M1.5 but configuration is unspecified. So to settle the long long standing dispute the Eurofigher DOES NOT SUPERCRUISE. Disagreement with this point, not that there should be any, should focus on SUPERCRUISE rather than exceeding Mach 1 which is what the Eurofigher has demonstrated. SUPERSONIC being defines as ALL AIRFLOW AROUND THE AIRFRAME being supersonic. Also consider that the configuration typically discussed has 50% fuel load which doesnt bode very well when you factor in the SFC ~23g/kn at max military power. Also the claimed Eurofighter supercruise capability originates for a 1998 WAP Journal Volume 35 Winter 1998 edition. The 44 page article describes how a Eurofighter flying at 40,000ft with 6 mock up air to air missiles and 50% fuel load ACCELERATES TO M1.4 WITH AFTERBURNER during a supersonic acceleration test. After which the pilot disengaged the after burner and the aircraft decelerated to about M1.0~M1.1 and held that speed briefly without the afterburner on.

FYI-

F-14/15/16/18

F-104

EE

Draken and some Migs/SUs

Rafale

All of the above can fly just above Mach 1 in military power again depending on configuration and have been able to do so for decades. So NOTHING IS NEW OR REVOLUTIONARY about the Eurofighter false claim of supercruise.

************************************************** **************************

Cost:

20 billion pounds for the RAF program cost!!!

************************************************** **************************

Schedule:

5 years late if we accept the sub standard Tranche 1 IOC. Longer(10 years) for the Tranche 2+.

************************************************** **************************

Relevence:

Considering the limited air to ground capability vs comparable types. I would include this as one of the detractions of the type but not always because some users have different requirements. But still considering the price and the ability of Other 4th Gen designs like the F-16 Block 60, Gripen and others it has to be a factor.

[perfectgeneral]

The usual suspects hawking the same old goods.

[DarthAmerica]

The usual suspects hawking the same old goods.

Yes we do. Hopefully this time in a more mature and moderated forum. But I'm a little confused. Wouldnt you be Bond though...;)

[gf0012-aust]

........this time in a more mature and moderated forum.

This forum is a lot more tightly run than some others.

fundamental rules for people to remember:
http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

particular emphasis should be paid to:


Do not post anything illegal or injurious (including libelous, defamatory, or abusive statements, obscenity, profanity, or pornography).
Do not post irrelevant topics/replies. The DefenceTalk.com, its moderators, and members of this community reserve the right to delete posts we determine are irrelevant to the discussion in which they're posted.
Do not disrespect anyone on this board - whether you disagree with them or agree with them. It is suggested that you keep your cool and show restraint when discussing important defence matters.
Do not disrespect military personnel of other countries. DefenceTalk.com considers them dedicated professionals who put their lives on the line for their motherland.
Do not link, in any post, to pages elsewhere on the Web that violate either these rules or their spirit.
Do not start inflammatory threads with purpose of degrading/defaming another country, its leaders or its people.
Do not post LINK/URL to external FORUMS and message boards or in your Signatures.
Do not use forums for "lobby" purposes. Defencetalk is an international website but that does not mean you can abuse its forums by posting false and anti-"country" information in order to degrade members of that country or its position in the world community. We will not allow that.</I>
You must post source of your information/articles ( link, website, book, magazine, etc.).Please post actual link of the story rather than your own blog, etc.
You must have fun and let others do the same.Violators may be warned, suspended from posting, or banned from the forums, at the sole discretion of DefenceTalk.com Admins.

Posts that don't comply or generate a lot of warranted complaints won't last long on here.

[DarthAmerica]

This forum is a lot more tightly run than some others.


In that case I am really looking forward to the replies. As you know, I can both stir and cool the pot...:)

[Gaenth]

In my humble opinion the Eurofighter program is the living proof of the might of the European Aerospace Industry. They're truly capable of working together and deliver some of the best defence systems in the world.

That said, there's a bunch of succesful European programmes that preceed Eurofighter so in perspective it's not such a big breakthrough in terms of multinational cooperation or technical achievement even, and there's the controversy of the delays and exceeding costs of the programme which are undeniable. But if you look to the F-22 programme you'll see that it's also far from perfection and just wait for the F-35! :rolleyes: In the end I think Europe can still look proudly at their Eurofighter.

As for detectability and attack capability, I think it's a bit unfair to compare Eurofighters to Block 60 F-16s because the Viper is a mature design that has received a lot of avionics and weapons upgrades over its years in service to a point in which Block 60's are only similar in shape to Block 10's. The Grippen has a lot of potential as well but is not that a match to Typhoon, however future upgrades to both look interesting because they will have to do something to keep up with newer designs equipped with TVC engines, lower observables, and more advanced weapons. I see the Typhoon becoming a really powerful attack platform in a few years, at what cost I wonder... :confused:

[WebMaster]

Thanks Gary.

This might help with the discussion:

Eurofighter Leads Growing Fighter, Attack, Jet Trainer Aircraft Market (http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_005457.php)

The world combat aircraft market is much more competitive than it was a year ago, primarily due to two significant developments. First, the U.S. Air Force failed to overturn cutbacks suggested for the Lockheed Martin F-22 program in early 2005; the service will now acquire about 180 F-22s.

[DarthAmerica]

In my humble opinion the Eurofighter program is the living proof of the might of the European Aerospace Industry. They're truly capable of working together and deliver some of the best defence systems in the world.

That would be true in 1990-1995. In IOC in 2006 at less than advertised performance after 30+ years of development? I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I see the Typhoon becoming a really powerful attack platform in a few years, at what cost I wonder... :confused:

Well thats the crux of the arguement. In a few years, 2010-2012, we are talking about a platform thats been in development since 1972. And it will offer less bang for the buck than many currently available fighters and far less than the F-35. So you have to question the wisdom of a 20 billion pound program thats essentially obsolete from day one. In my opinion the program would have been better off cancelled with funds diverted into a F-35 successor/competitor or a system of UCAVs. In the interm current platforms could have had modernizations and service life extensions until such time that the F-35 was available. Funnily enough though, by the time the Eurofighter is able to deliver on claimed capabilities the F-35 WILL BE available and at half the price. Just doesnt add up for me. Of course there is the preserve your industry peace dividend arguement but I think there were better alternatives to preserving the industry. Of course I can say that with 20/20 hindsight but an objective look at platforms coming out of the US and Russia in the 1990-2015 timeframe would have helped IMO.

[JWCook]

Hello Darth

Is plagiarism in your vocabulary???

Below is my assessment of the inferiority of the CAPTOR vs more modern technologies and the adverse effects on the Typhoons.

In the next few years there will be a number of upgrades to the systems software till Final Operational Capability is attained. Following this a number of hardware upgrades are planned. These involve changing a number of both the shop replaceable items and line replaceable units. These upgrades will focus on improving resolution and ECCM capabilities. The next upgrades will see a switchover to off-the-shelf components. Even with these improvements there are a number of fundamental weaknesses in the CAPTOR's design such as; relatively slow scanning speeds compared to newer technology arrays, relative ease of detection, effects on RCS, etc.
Directly lifted from my website here :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/sensors.html

I'm sure you didn't mean to pass it off as your own........:nono

and these shock n horror admissions are just personal opinions of the webmasters (one of which is me!):duel

OK heres the info you really need to find out about:-

Hmm.. Have you heard of CAESAR???, the Captor AESA Radar program??.

http://www.spacemart.com/reports/CAESAR_Triumphs_As_New_Gen_Of_Radar_Takes_Flight.h tml


You also said this:-

EADs and Eurojet claim supercruise at M1.2-M1.3(depending probably on external config) which is clearly in the TRANSONIC region. A futher claim suggest an engine upgrade to allow M1.5 but configuration is unspecified. So to settle the long long standing dispute the Eurofigher DOES NOT SUPERCRUISE. Disagreement with this point, not that there should be any, should focus on SUPERCRUISE rather than exceeding Mach 1 which is what the Eurofigher has demonstrated. SUPERSONIC being defines as ALL AIRFLOW AROUND THE AIRFRAME being supersonic. Also consider that the configuration typically discussed has 50% fuel load which doesnt bode very well when you factor in the SFC at max military power.

you might want to see one of your sources which directly contradicts you too:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise


The M1.5 figure is with the present engines and the configuration is clean and with less than a full tank of gas, But never fear!! with growth engines the M1.5 will be higher.

So apart from 'acccidental' plagiarism, and misrepresenting the facts - that was a top post...:mock


regards

John

[DarthAmerica]

Hello Darth

Is plagiarism in your vocabulary???

Directly lifted from my website here :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/sensors.html

I'm sure you didn't mean to pass it off as your own........:nono

and these shock n horror admissions are just personal opinions of the webmasters (one of which is me!):duel

OK heres the info you really need to find out about:-

Hmm.. Have you heard of CAESAR???, the Captor AESA Radar program??.

http://www.spacemart.com/reports/CAESAR_Triumphs_As_New_Gen_Of_Radar_Takes_Flight.h tml


You also said this:-



you might want to see one of your sources which directly contradicts you too:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise


The M1.5 figure is with the present engines and the configuration is clean and with less than a full tank of gas, But never fear!! with growth engines the M1.5 will be higher.

So apart from 'acccidental' plagiarism, and misrepresenting the facts - that was a top post...:mock


regards

John

I apologize for not acknowledging your site. My HTML link to you didnt work initially and I edited out the invalid HTML tags. As a lowly private on Defense Talk, I'm not as familiar with this site as I am with several others. Bear with me please.

Besides the sarcasm, you have nothing that contradicts anything I said. Also, while I doubt the claim of M1.5. Its hardly a relevant performance parameter if the aircraft isnt armed and flying with 2 to 3 minutes of fuel. Its also not possible without using the afterburner to first accel past the transonic drag hump.

As to CAESAR, you do know that its still in development, too expensive to mass produce, wont be available until after 2011 and when it is available. It will "Just be a Radar" rather than having the capabilities of competing MESAs that are flying on othe combat aircraft. Having said that, it will reduce the RCS, increase performance vs Jamming, offer more multirole capability, increase detection range AND OF COURSE ADD COST. Not to mention being less capable than the apg-63(V2)/63(v3)/77/79/81.

Like I said, Eurofighter is an obsolete design in my opinion.

[Gaenth]

So you have to question the wisdom of a 20 billion pound program thats essentially obsolete from day one. In my opinion the program would have been better off cancelled with funds diverted into a F-35 successor/competitor or a system of UCAVs.

You're not British, are you my friend? Well, I've always thought that if the French would have stayed it wouldn't have been so bad, now the UK, France, Germany and Italy all have very expensive new fighters and everyone is complaining. I find it hard to believe there was ever a point where the EF programme could have been called off and come out of it with an advantage.


In the interm current platforms could have had modernizations and service life extensions until such time that the F-35 was available.

They actually extensively upgraded Harriers, Jaguars, Tornados and even the Bucaneers because they had to in order to maintain capability not to fill the gap while the miracle=do-it-all-super-fighter arrived. Many have questioned the Typhoon funds could have been better used in such upgrades, but there would have been little left to invest in other programmes. FOAS was axed and some of its funds diverted to JSF and UCAVs that don't fulfill the original FOAS requirement.


Funnily enough though, by the time the Eurofighter is able to deliver on claimed capabilities the F-35 WILL BE available and at half the price.
Oh! That's yet to be seen...:rolleyes: Hopefully you'll be right.


Of course I can say that with 20/20 hindsight but an objective look at platforms coming out of the US and Russia in the 1990-2015 timeframe would have helped IMO.

Having an objective look at the platforms coming from Russia I think that they certainly look the part but don't play it.

[JWCook]

I apologize for not acknowledging your site.

No apology necessary, I guessed it was just an ommission.

Besides the sarcasm, you have nothing that contradicts anything I said.

Hmm. you have posted a website that supposedly supports your arguments , and I have posted links from the same website that directly contradicts you RE:- supercruise - can you explain that?:onfloorl:.

Also, while I doubt the claim of M1.5. Its hardly a relevant performance parameter if the aircraft isnt armed and flying with 2 to 3 minutes of fuel.

You need'nt doubt the M1.5 claim, after all it is on the present engines, as for relevancy with warload, that is not the issue, it was you who brought up the Typhoons supposedly inability to supercruise, I have mearly told you some facts you were missing when you made your flawed assertions, BTW clean means 4 BVRAAM missiles..




Its also not possible without using the afterburner to first accel past the transonic drag hump.

The typhoon does not require AB to pass this region.

As to CAESAR, you do know that its still in development, too expensive to mass produce, wont be available until after 2011 and when it is available. It will "Just be a Radar" rather than having the capabilities of competing MESAs that are flying on othe combat aircraft. Having said that, it will reduce the RCS, increase performance vs Jamming, offer more multirole capability, increase detection range AND OF COURSE ADD COST. Not to mention being less capable than the apg-63(V2)/63(v3)/77/79/81.

I do hope you have a robust arguement to back up these claims,

"Just a radar" what are your sources for this?...

"less capable" is especially funny considering you have no idea what Caesar is capable of!!!, and what are the costs involved??, I'd like to know, procurement against maintanence.. hmm you must have better sources than mine!!

Like I said, Eurofighter is an obsolete design in my opinion.

You are entitled to this opinion, and it is indeed a fine opinion to have, well apart from the obvious..:clown



Cheers

[DarthAmerica]

You're not British, are you my friend? Well, I've always thought that if the French would have stayed it wouldn't have been so bad, now the UK, France, Germany and Italy all have very expensive new fighters and everyone is complaining. I find it hard to believe there was ever a point where the EF programme could have been called off and come out of it with an advantage.


Having an objective look at the platforms coming from Russia I think that they certainly look the part but don't play it.


Well you noticed I'm not British...;)

Seriously though, I'm a little intrigued by your last comment in regard to Russian Platforms. Specifically the exports. I'm not sure I would be too happy weighing the SU-27 series and Typhoon against each other in terms of capabilities. Tripple if we factor in cost. Insult to injury if we consider potential for enhancement and upgrades.

[DarthAmerica]

You need'nt doubt the M1.5 claim, after all it is on the present engines, as for relevancy with warload, that is not the issue, it was you who brought up the Typhoons supposedly inability to supercruise, I have mearly told you some facts you were missing when you made your flawed assertions, BTW clean means 4 BVRAAM missiles..


I do doubt it. And you doubt me. Thats fine and I dont wish to have an endless doubting session. So we either agree to doubt each other and move on. Or you can back up your doubt of me. But what is without a doubt is that using the Typhoons SFC. If you factor in reserve fuel, time to altitude and with a 50% fuel load. No Typhoon will ever supercruise by any practical measure(a.k.a. as in tangible in combat). Do the math, it will be sobering.


The typhoon does not require AB to pass this region.


Prove it


I do hope you have a robust arguement to back up these claims,

"Just a radar" what are your sources for this?...

"less capable" is especially funny considering you have no idea what Caesar is capable of!!!, and what are the costs involved??, I'd like to know, procurement against maintanence.. hmm you must have better sources than mine!!


First you should state clearly if you agree or disagree with what I said.

[Whiskyjack]

Well you noticed I'm not British...;)

Seriously though, I'm a little intrigued by your last comment in regard to Russian Platforms. Specifically the exports. I'm not sure I would be too happy weighing the SU-27 series and Typhoon against each other in terms of capabilities. Tripple if we factor in cost. Insult to injury if we consider potential for enhancement and upgrades.

Interesting, are you taking into account who is flying, maintenance, training (flight hours), assets supporting the aircraft, over all tactics being employed etc...

I would not bet against RAF pilot supported by RAF/NATO assets over a SU-27.

[JWCook]

As for doing the math, Ricconconi (Spelling) did the same for the Raptor and came to the same conclusion your coming to!!.

The Eurofighter Accidentally exceeded mach 1 during its development without using Reheat, and this was using RB199 engines which are considerably lower in power!!.



Now will you answer why the definition of supercruise as stated by your sources states that the Typhoon can supercruise!!.

You may argue the practicalities of the warload and endurance, but not the fact it can supercruise.


I cannot agree with your assertions re CAESAR...!
Now where are the robust arguments supporting your assertions of Cost and capability of CAESAR, what are you basing these claims on?

cheers

[DarthAmerica]

I would not bet against RAF pilot supported by RAF/NATO assets over a SU-27.

Interesting that you are mismatching a system vs platform comparison in your arguement. If that SU-27 is being flown by a Russian Airforce Pilot and is of the latest generation and being used per doctrine I'd bet on it overcoming the RAF. Thats because its not going to be one SU-27. It will be many of them with support and they will be able to replace losses faster and at less cost. But we would have to define the conflict better for a true analysis.

At the platform level, the SU-30 variant is more than a match for the Typhoon and currently more capable to include operational experience.

[DarthAmerica]

As for doing the math, Ricconconi (Spelling) did the same for the Raptor and came to the same conclusion your coming to!!.

Not only Strawman but a common propaganda tactic. Try to associate the opposing view with a commonly unpopular person or ideology. You will have to do a little better Mr. Cook.

The Eurofighter Accidentally exceeded mach 1 during its development without using Reheat, and this was using RB199 engines which are considerably lower in power!!.

I dont care to debate that. Many aircraft today and in the past could do that. The Electric Lightning and F-14 come to mind. But I am not arguing about the irrelevant ability to simply exceed M1.0 but rather to exceed and sustain such flight so as to exploit the capability in combat.


Now will you answer why the definition of supercruise as stated by your sources states that the Typhoon can supercruise!!.

You may argue the practicalities of the warload and endurance, but not the fact it can supercruise.

Because I'm using supercruise in the context of it being a tangible ability that can be exploited in combat. So yes I'll argue it. And in the end I'll be right.


I cannot agree with your assertions re CAESAR...!
Now where are the robust arguments supporting your assertions of Cost and capability of CAESAR, what are you basing these claims on?

cheers


Be more specific on which assertions.

[JWCook]

Ok the Typhoon has a fuel fraction of 31 % the F-22 according to Riccioni is 29% See http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-000812-f22.htm

Now I've done the math, Are you also asserting the F-22 isn't a supercruiser??, what exactly are you asserting??

Onto Breaking mach without reheat

I have proved the Typhoon can break mach on RB199'sn in dry, something you ask to be proved, When I did you then "don't care to discuss it"
Very Odd....

Care to comment on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise
Why does your definition differ to this website, a website you offered as a credable source???:rotfl.

You asserted CAESER is only a radar, I believe it be NOAR.
You asserted the CAESAR is more expensive, however did you take throught life costs into account?
You asserted the capabilities of other radars were superior, I know you are making it up, as the capabilities of CAESAR are not yet publically known.

Stop dancing around the issues..

[DarthAmerica]

Ok the Typhoon has a fuel fraction of 31 % the F-22 according to Riccioni is 29% See http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-000812-f22.htm

Now I've done the math, Are you also asserting the F-22 isn't a supercruiser??, what exactly are you asserting??

I'm not asserting anything nor am I discussing the still very classified and unknown to you , F-22. Think Typhoon.


Onto Breaking mach without reheat

I've already made clear that I'm talking in the context of tangibility and combat. If you would like to discuss breaking M1.0 without burners then I suggest you start another thread. For that matter we could also discuss breaking M2.0.

I have proved the Typhoon can break mach on RB199'sn in dry, something you ask to be proved, When I did you then "don't care to discuss it"
Very Odd....


You proved or typed?

Care to comment on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise
Why does your definition differ to this website, a website you offered as a credable source???:rotfl.

I already have. Look up the word efficiently and read it again. FYI, I think ans speak in terms of combat. So if some fighter can fly backward in an airshow but that ability not offer some applicability to actual warfare. Then its an irrelevant capability.

You asserted CAESER is only a radar, I believe it be NOAR.

OK good for you. Got proof?

You asserted the CAESAR is more expensive, however did you take throught life costs into account?

Thats not an assertion, its fact. One of the primary reasons Europe lags in the fighter AESA market is production cost. CAESAR is only a demonstration of technology and hasnt been optimized for serial production.

You asserted the capabilities of other radars were superior, I know you are making it up, as the capabilities of CAESAR are not yet publically known.

Stop dancing around the issues..

Sigh...if only it was possible to have objective discussion. In addition to over using the word assertion, you now accuse me of making things up. Very well. In that case we dont have much more to talk about until you could extend the courtesy of not claiming to know I'm making up things. I will leave you with the fact that CAESAR is not an entirely new radar. And that CAESAR relies on many of the "older" backend components of CAPTOR.

Before making ad hominem attacks on my credibility about what you know I'm making up. You may want to refer to the site that you are a Web Master on that talks in detail about some of the limitations of CAPTOR even when retrofitted with an AESA antennea and power supply. Interesting enough, it also mentions the issue of keeping cost down.

Futher, in comparing AESA, the USA is between the 4th and 6th generation of deployed AESA technology. The APG-63/77/79/80/81 were purpose built and use modern design philosophy rather than retrofits onto older mech scan array backends.

Your Site:

http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/sensors.html

Also you might want to change the AMSAR references to CAESAR in the interest of accuracy.

[JWCook]

Hmmm so to sum up...
Your not asserting anything!,
Your not telling what you think you know.
Your not even telling why you think you know.


Clears that up nicely..:cool:, but sort of sucky when it comes to debating, do I take it you withdraw sir?

BTW AMSAR and CAESAR are not the same at all, I'm afraid your more than a little confused between what AMSAR is and where CAESAR fits into it.

But I'm sure you knew that all along and was just toying with me:rolleyes:.

For the benifit of others reading this here is a description of AMSAR/Caesar.

AMSAR is R&D, CAESAR is a technology demonstrator, money is require to move to production, tooling etc..

AMSAR or Airborne Multi-mode Solid-state Active-array Radar aims to provide the Typhoon and Rafale (and other future European air systems) with an entirely solid-state advanced active array (although the Rafale is equipped with a phased array radar, the RBE.2, it is a passive system rather than a solid-state active array). A consortium company was formed soon after called GTDAR (or GEC-Thomson-DASA Airborne Radar).
he program has an intended length of 11 years and is split into three phases. The first two of these examined the feasibility and requirements for a new generation of active arrays as well as new methods for fabricating the expensive Microwave Monolithic Integrated Circuit (MMIC) modules. The target price for the modules is around £400 to £500 compared to several thousand at present. In addition a bench scale unit was to be constructed demonstrating the overall feasibility of the project. Both of these phases were completed by mid-1998 with the testing of a 144 module array utilising an advanced MMIC featuring a custom ASIC and a multi-layer ceramic substrate housed in a metal matrix composite unit.
Following a successful demonstration of the 144 module array the British, French and German Defence Ministries have authorised the third stage of the project to proceed. This will see the construction of a 1000+ module full-scale unit which will subsequently undergo flight testing aboard BAE Systems's Canadair avionics test aircraft. If the project proceeds to schedule the unit will be competed in 2001 and flight trials will occur in 2002.

CAESAR is the child of AMSAR and the CAPTOR, 'with an eye on costs' the modules that control transmit and receive and the planar array are removed and the CAESAR components are slotted in, the back end where the processing occurs is kept the same but was sw modified and the processors upgraded in the past to accept this type of upgrade, it is estimated that the higher cost of procurement will be more than recouped by reduced cost of maintainence.

link http://www.c4isrjournal.com/story.php?F=1579207


As for NOAR functions I'm unable to quote the source to you, you'll just have to trust me!!. unless you know different.

[DarthAmerica]

Clears that up nicely..:cool:, but sort of sucky when it comes to debating, do I take it you withdraw sir?

Take it however you like. I'm not interested in semantics, word games, antagonism or "winning debates". The premise of this thread is the obsolesence of the Eurofighter compared to other contemporary 4th Gen platforms.

BTW AMSAR and CAESAR are not the same at all, I'm afraid your more than a little confused between what AMSAR is and where CAESAR fits into it.

No its your website that references the AMSAR in the wrong context.

But I'm sure you knew that all along and was just toying with me:rolleyes:.

For the benifit of others reading this here is a description of AMSAR/Caesar.

AMSAR is R&D, CAESAR is a technology demonstrator, money is require to move to production, tooling etc..

As for NOAR functions I'm unable to quote the source to you, you'll just have to trust me!!. unless you know different.

I do know different. But it hardly matters. CAESAR is not even an option pre-2011 optimistically. Meanwhile, there are no fewer than 4 real AESA capable fighters out there and available now. Eurofighter has not done well in competition with any of them.

[gf0012-aust]

Reminder:


Do not disrespect anyone on this board - whether you disagree with them or agree with them. It is suggested that you keep your cool and show restraint when discussing important defence matters.

Civility will be adhered to on this forum or posts will get locked pronto.We've spent the last 12 months getting the unnecessary sarcasm and flippancy out of posts - I or the other Mods will not have it revert to the days when we had kids have arse rubbing competitions.

This forum is not here to create a venue for competition on opposing thoughts.

[DarthAmerica]

Reminder:

Do not disrespect anyone on this board - whether you disagree with them or agree with them. It is suggested that you keep your cool and show restraint when discussing important defence matters.
Civility will be adhered to on this forum or posts will get locked pronto.We've spent the last 12 months getting the unnecessary sarcasm and flippancy out of posts - I or the other Mods will not have it revert to the days when we had kids have arse rubbing competitions.

This forum is not here to create a venue for competition on opposing thoughts.


Thank You making that clear.


Summing up the radar issue, CAPTOR has hurt the potential of the Eurofighter and is in clear need of replacement. An effort that is currently underway with the CAESAR program. The reality with CAESAR is that no matter how good it is, its arrival in the beginning to middle of next decade may hurt the potential of the Eurofighter with the arrival of the F35/apg-81 and maturing of the APG-63(v3), APG-77 and APG-79. And CAESAR will still suffer from some of the limitations of the previous CAPTOR design that will limit its ability to be NOAR.

I wonder if the alternative of fitting a modified APG-79/81 to the Typhoon has been considered?

[adsH]

That would be true in 1990-1995. In IOC in 2006 at less than advertised performance after 30+ years of development? I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder. .

I suppose so.



Well thats the crux of the arguement. In a few years, 2010-2012, we are talking about a platform thats been in development since 1972. And it will offer less bang for the buck than many currently available fighters and far less than the F-35. So you have to question the wisdom of a 20 billion pound program thats essentially obsolete from day one.


Hold on!! is this Fact Based on Evidance that you've Accumulated or is it your vague Opnion disguised and Foricably pushed through as a Fact.

Not all forces regard F-22 as the Future requirement hence your statement about Obsolesce should be disregarded. YOu don't procure Military hardware based on Mass Marketing Campaigns you procure them based on capability studies and requirement Evaluations. Each Miltary force is different
The British Armed forces have requirements that the Eurofighter fulfils.



In my opinion the program would have been better off cancelled with funds diverted into a F-35 successor/competitor or a system of UCAVs. In the interm current platforms could have had modernizations and service life extensions until such time that the F-35 was available. Funnily enough though, by the time the Eurofighter is able to deliver on claimed capabilities the F-35 WILL BE available and at half the price.
.

I'l take your word on the Priceing issue. provided you can provide either credible source or a logical reasoning.


Please don't start Off "In my honest opinion" and then near to the end of the paragraph state opinion as a fact, its misleading!


Just doesnt add up for me. Of course there is the preserve your industry peace dividend arguement but I think there were better alternatives to preserving the industry.

It's all about preserving your capabilities I'm not ashamed to admit that. Politics is a major Factor in Weaponry SAles and We're DAmn good at it :)

[DarthAmerica]

The British Armed forces have requirements that the Eurofighter fulfils.

Agreed but at what cost especially compared to alternatives. Say for example UK decided to procure F-15E variants instead as was the case in SK and Singapore. Or perhaps even F-16 Blk 60 or F/A-18E. In these cases I think that the requirements could be met at much lower cost, on time and with capabilities that the UK could take advantage of now such as true long range multirole capabilty. Two things though, this is an opinion and it ignores the desire for a European platform.


I'l take your word on the Priceing issue. provided you can provide either credible source or a logical reasoning.

Just in case my word isnt enough. I found this on this site:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=952

While that isnt my source, even the unadjusted numbers support my comments in regard to price. There are many open sources that show the cost of the Eurofighter to be at least approximately double that of the F-35. The one qualifier though is that the F-35 isnt operational yet so we would have to reevaluate the cost in the 2012 timeframe. But cost is a driving factor in the F-35 program and if it grew too far outside the predicted margins the F-35 would price itself out of the market for most potential users. My understanding of the approximate cost of the Eurofighter vs the F-35 are

Eurofighter=approximately 100 to 130 million USD each in todays dollars
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter.htm

F-35=approximately 50 to 60 million USD each in todays dollars
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-specs.htm


It's all about preserving your capabilities I'm not ashamed to admit that. Politics is a major Factor in Weaponry SAles and We're DAmn good at it :)


I agree with you here. I just think it could be done better and cheaper by buying US...:) When I say better I'm speaking in terms of avionics, weapons and multirole capability.




Below is a related OPINION piece:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/01/dl0102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/04/01/ixopinion.html

[Whiskyjack]

Interesting that you are mismatching a system vs platform comparison in your arguement. If that SU-27 is being flown by a Russian Airforce Pilot and is of the latest generation and being used per doctrine I'd bet on it overcoming the RAF. Thats because its not going to be one SU-27. It will be many of them with support and they will be able to replace losses faster and at less cost. But we would have to define the conflict better for a true analysis.

At the platform level, the SU-30 variant is more than a match for the Typhoon and currently more capable to include operational experience.

I would think that a platform is only as good as the system it operates in and that to separate out the platform from the system is a mistake.

I think back to the first gulf war where the Saudi AF had some very potent platforms but the system was not able to operate them effectively, or the Iranians in the 1980s who had the F-14, but no logistics to keep them flying, and not enough experienced pilots as a result of the revolution to make the most of them.

That being said I recognise that the Typhoon that is flying in April 2006 may not be as capable as it will be, either the platform or the logistics. I don’t know that for certain as I do not have access to all the facts. But I do know from the history of the introduction of other platforms that tactics and logistics take time to shape up. The Tornado ADV flew with concrete in place of the Radar if memory serves me right.

But I also recognise that the RAF pilots train to NATO standards of at least 180 hrs per year, I also know that on average the Russian Air Force has had an average or 30-50 hrs for its pilots for around a decade now and that logistics have also not been up to scratch either. I don’t know of any SU operators off hand that has the tactics, support systems or training hours up to NATO standards. That being said I am sure the Russians, Indians, and Chinese will be capable of generating capable units in their own local environments, but only as a small percentage of total platforms.

As I start off by saying in an Air to Air scenario the system makes more of a difference than the platform.

[Gaenth]

Well you noticed I'm not British...;)

Seriously though, I'm a little intrigued by your last comment in regard to Russian Platforms. Specifically the exports. I'm not sure I would be too happy weighing the SU-27 series and Typhoon against each other in terms of capabilities. Tripple if we factor in cost. Insult to injury if we consider potential for enhancement and upgrades.

No I wouldn't be happy either weighing those two against each other, but not because I think Flankers are close in capability to Typhoons, I just can't figure out how considering the inmense differences between their air-to-air weapons and systems. Again, the Su-27 family has been arround a while, it seems natural to me that it's been upgraded accordingly, they've packed pretty much all they can on that airframe and they've developed so many different versions for many different roles yet none of them is called second best fighter in the world.

As for the remaining Russian platforms, all have been left behind by latest versions of Western 4th Generation Fighters. 5th Generation: MiG 1.44 flown twice and yet they claim it's equal to F-22, (can't figure out how either) then it was marked as a "technology demonstrator" because they couldn't afford to produce it. Su-47 another technology demonstrator, Sukhoi admitted the benefits of its forward swept wings were just not worth the cost of the aircraft, so they would choose another wing design for production leaving them with what? Another Flanker? And God knows when will it enter production when and IF they team up with India. Those programs were anything but cheap so, there you have, some interesting way of blowing cash on platforms that are obsolete right from the beginning.

So you're American then? HA! :D

[DarthAmerica]

No I wouldn't be happy either weighing those two against each other, but not because I think Flankers are close in capability to Typhoons, I just can't figure out how considering the inmense differences between their air-to-air weapons and systems. Again, the Su-27 family has been arround a while, it seems natural to me that it's been upgraded accordingly, they've packed pretty much all they can on that airframe and they've developed so many different versions for many different roles yet none of them is called second best fighter in the world.

There is just so much potential inherent in the design of the SU-27 series that I cannot do it justice without a dedicated post. The Russians really hit a home run with that platform. I think open sourced SU-27s represent some of the best potential available all things considered.

As to which platform is second best. Thats a tie between F-15E/18E until the F-35 hits the market.

So you're American then? HA! :D

Yes

[JWCook]

Darth Wrote:-Its also not possible without using the afterburner to first accel past the transonic drag hump.

you asked me to prove it - See http://www.eurofighter.com/Typhoon/Airframe/
and click on general information it quotes "Supercruise capability and Dry Power Acceleration from Sub to >Supersonic"

Consider it proved Darth.... can you provide anything?


Re Costs the JSF is price

Its funny Darth the link you provided http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter.htm states the Typhoon is $58M not the $100M-$130M you claim.. a typo perhaps!!.

The current real cost of a Typhoon (as taken from the figures from the Austrian deal) is 62M Euros (approx $US76M). flyaway.

The GAO http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05271.pdf report contains the prices as from last year $45N - $61M (not current as you claim), if you extrapolate thes figures (even with the most favourabe linear rises) the unit price of the 2013 JSF will be
CTOL = $55M
carrier= $85M
STOVL= $120M

You'll agree these are significantly higher than inflation, which must also be added...

Its my own personal view the JSF will come in around the $75M to $90M mark. If you trend it against the last fighter produced by the US it is much much higher (F-22).

So be wary of counting your 45-60M dollars chickens just yet.


Darth also wrote No its your website that references the AMSAR in the wrong context.

Can you explain further?, why is it in the wrong context..?, can you provide anything?


Cheers

[DarthAmerica]

I would think that a platform is only as good as the system it operates in and that to separate out the platform from the system is a mistake.

Agreed. What I'm doing and suggesting others do is to substitute other alternative platforms into that system and judge the results.

I think back to the first gulf war where the Saudi AF had some very potent platforms but the system was not able to operate them effectively, or the Iranians in the 1980s who had the F-14, but no logistics to keep them flying, and not enough experienced pilots as a result of the revolution to make the most of them.

The F-14 proved to be a deadly weapon in the hands of the Iranians and did very well for themselves.

That being said I recognise that the Typhoon that is flying in April 2006 may not be as capable as it will be, either the platform or the logistics. I don’t know that for certain as I do not have access to all the facts. But I do know from the history of the introduction of other platforms that tactics and logistics take time to shape up. The Tornado ADV flew with concrete in place of the Radar if memory serves me right.

The problem, for me, is that after some 40 years of development it will still never catch up to its peers. This excludes flight performance.

But I also recognise that the RAF pilots train to NATO standards of at least 180 hrs per year, I also know that on average the Russian Air Force has had an average or 30-50 hrs for its pilots for around a decade now and that logistics have also not been up to scratch either. I don’t know of any SU operators off hand that has the tactics, support systems or training hours up to NATO standards. That being said I am sure the Russians, Indians, and Chinese will be capable of generating capable units in their own local environments, but only as a small percentage of total platforms.

As I start off by saying in an Air to Air scenario the system makes more of a difference than the platform.

I agree with this. And at the systems level, the Russians are able to overcome the RAF even in their weakend state. Of course this is partly due to sheer strength of numbers. But how you win doesnt matter at the end.

Air to air scenarios are increasingly obsolete IMO. And these are the scenarios that defined the development of the Typhoon. During the Cold War or IMMEDIATELY after in the 1991-1995 timeframe. AMRAAM armed Typhoons rising up to meet encroaching Soviet/Russian aircraft of that time would have been a good match. But in todays world. The Russians have weapons in their system that make these tactics obsolete. Specifically long ranged PGM with low RCS and low altitude flight profiles or really high speed ASMs. The ranges of these systems means that the Russians would not have to overcome the Typhoons to get at the critical infrastructure of the RAF. Because Typhoon lacks an AESA, the low altitude low RCS missiles will be extremely difficult to intercept. Yes AWACs coverage will help greatly. But in the condensed battle space of the UK its not going to take too many leakers to get measurable effects. But even worse than all of that. Being that the Typhoon is an inherently defensive fighter and also because the UK totally lacks any relevant non nuclear means of striking back, the Russian system can wear down the defense through attrition. And you cannot trade 100 to 130 million dollar Typhoons for 40 to 50 million dollar SU-27s and hope to remain in the fight very long.

[LancerMc]

Darth can you list these low RCS PGM's, because I have read extensively about Russian PGM's and not familar that any were designed with a low RCS that are currenlty in any type of service like some Western designs?

[DarthAmerica]

Darth Wrote:-

you asked me to prove it - See http://www.eurofighter.com/Typhoon/Airframe/
and click on general information it quotes "Supercruise capability and Dry Power Acceleration from Sub to >Supersonic"

Consider it proved Darth.... can you provide anything?

That doesnt prove anything. As I stated before. The Eurofighter website claims many things, as do other manufacturers, that are best classified as marketing hype. At best , that statement is out of context. It would be the same as posting the phenominal performance of the F-15 rigged as a test bed. In other words its no different that when a car manufacturer advertises its sports car by showing not street legal racing versions of their car doing laps on a track. And then in the next scene they show a street legal commercially available model. Its a common marketing technique. Operationally configured Typhoons do not offer any significant or tangible performance charateristic that other 4th Generation planes like the F-15/16/18C do not also offer. Futher, the Typhoon doesnt have the fuel or the engines to sustain supercruise in any operational context. In order to supercruise, engines have to be specifically designed to deal with the higher stresses that go with that type of operation. The F119 and EJ200 are fundamentally different designs with one optimized for supercruise. This is not unlike the claim that Mig-25s can exceed M3.0 when in practice they are limited to speeds below M2.8 because above that the engines are literally worn out. Also the Typhoon is limited to a very narrow flight profile to even hope to achive this kind of performance(supercruise). 50% fuel, at approx 36000ft and unladen with the exception of possibly 4 AAM. Like I said, even if you ignore the fact that the engines could not sustain this performance. Calculating the range based on the SFC eliminated the chance for any operational capability. Dont fall for the marketing hype. It didnt work in Singapore or South Korea when the type had to compete for business.



The current real cost of a Typhoon (as taken from the figures from the Austrian deal) is 62M Euros (approx $US76M). flyaway.

Thats simply not true. The Austian deal was heavily subsadized to spur exports. Whats funny about that is that even if you believe the misleading $76M USD number. The aircraft is significantly less capable than F-15E, F-16 blk 60 or F/A-18E in addition to being more expensive. Be careful using numbers like that because it is very missleading. Every defense aviation publication and expert agrees that the cost of the Eurofighter is higher than the nuber you listed.




Darth also wrote

Can you explain further?, why is it in the wrong context..?, can you provide anything?


Cheers


I would do so in private so as not to provoke the moderators. Feel free to contact me via Gmail if you like. Fear not Mr. Cook. I do not hate the Eurofighter. Its a nice looking jet with impressive performance. All things considered however its only moderately capable in the context of other 4th generation and 5th generation platforms. It fits in between the early model 4th Gen Migs/SUs/F-teens and late model F-teens/Migs/SUs and sits well behind the 5th gen F18E/22/35. In my analysis I am considering avionics, multirole applicability, LO Characteristics, weapons options and cost.

[DarthAmerica]

Darth can you list these low RCS PGM's, because I have read extensively about Russian PGM's and not familar that any were designed with a low RCS that are currenlty in any type of service like some Western designs?

Most modern cruise missiles have relatively low RCS inherent to their design(ie being small). F-16's and Mig-21's are noted for having low RCS compared to larger fighters for example. Also by flying close to the ground, the cruise missile can hide below the radar horizon unless you are able to "look down". Of course the Eurofighter has a look down radar, but the performance will be reduced somewhat.

Specifically dealing with your question. Take a look at the Kh-55 and BrahMos missiles.

http://www.brahmos.com/missile_spec.html

There are others as well but it is beyond the scope of my post to describe them in detail. I will say this though. A missile with even slightly reduced RCS either inherent in the design or by design seriously complicated the defense. The high speed of these missiles will already reduce the amount of time you have to intercept. The sooner you detect them the better your chance of stopping the missile. CAESAR would offer a better chance to detect these types of targets futher out than CAPTOR as a benefit of AESA technology. But as I said before, its not availale yet.

[gf0012-aust]

Specifically dealing with your question. Take a look at the Kh-55 and BrahMos missiles. There are others as well but it is beyond the scope of my post to describe them in detail.

I'm not so sure I'd use both of those missiles as an example of low RCS.

Brahmos/Yakhont/P800 especially stands out like the proverbial dogs from an E2. The heat signature alone will make someone stand up and take notice.

As for the Kh-55 - well, again "we" use jet aircraft to simulate them as they have similar flight and RCS profile. - it's like looking at a slow moving Mig-21

[LancerMc]

gf0012 is correct neither of the missiles are meant to be low RCS systems. Inherently these systems because of their size do have lower RCS then larger aircraft. Though none of those system were designed with the intention of having a very low RCS. If you look at Western RCS missile system you can gain a good idea what a PGM with a low RCS looks likes, examples: Stormshadow, AALCM, JASSM, and the JSOW.

[DarthAmerica]

I'm not so sure I'd use both of those missiles as an example of low RCS.


I'm very sure to use them because I said relative RCS generically as it applies to cruise missiles and also the low altitude flight profile which could hide even a B-52 depending on the altitude of the sensor trying to detect it. You will note the concern over such primitive systems as the Silkworm.

BrahMos in particular adds the dimension of decreased reaction times. Even if "its not all that great" and can only gain an additional 10 or 20 km of ingree before beinf detected, at its speed thats valuable time lost. Especially in the context of the UK IAD which is quite vulnerable.

That you mention IR if interesting as thats not typically used for wide area survailence and comparitively short range would leave significant gaps. Any cruise missile that could thread the needle between sensors is as stealthy as a B-2 in practical terms.

[DarthAmerica]

gf0012 is correct neither of the missiles are meant to be low RCS systems. Inherently these systems because of their size do have lower RCS then larger aircraft. Though none of those system were designed with the intention of having a very low RCS. If you look at Western RCS missile system you can gain a good idea what a PGM with a low RCS looks likes, examples: Stormshadow, AALCM, JASSM, and the JSOW.

OK this is taking my comments out of context. I'm not making a direct comparison to western cruise missiles. Also the BrahMos IS DESIGNED with some consideration to reducing RCS. How effective it is, is something we could only speculate on given the typical secracy associated with RCS. But considering that cruise missiles ALREADY have reduced signatures any improvement on a missile traveling at those velocities is going to have tangible benefits.

[gf0012-aust]

That you mention IR if interesting as thats not typically used for wide area survailence and comparitively short range would leave significant gaps. Any cruise missile that could thread the needle between sensors is as stealthy as a B-2 in practical terms.

yes it is - in fact fleet airborne ISR has been used since time immemorial to look for cruise missiles - and that includes using IR sensors.

Orions are also used (in Iraq currently) to watch for heat sigs on fast moving cruise missiles.

Thats why a fleet attack will need to broach a 300-450km window guarded by an AWACs as well as other organic sensor systems in play.

what you say has relevance for a non NATO navy more than 45 years ago - its certainly not the case now or since then.

[gf0012-aust]

Also the BrahMos IS DESIGNED with some consideration to reducing RCS. How effective it is, is something we could only speculate on given the typical secracy associated with RCS. But considering that cruise missiles ALREADY have reduced signatures any improvement on a missile traveling at those velocities is going to have tangible benefits.

Thats incorrect though. We do know what its RCS is because its just a P800 with an indigenous guidance system. The internal changes made by the Indians don't change its RCS profile at all.

So it's not speculation at all. Its based on what we know of the original russian product which brahmos fundamentally mirrors in 99% of its external design.

As for the threat of a supersonic cruise missile - I've yet to come across any USN EW Officer who sees them as the bogey man articulated by the press. The counter systems in place still deal with supersonics as well as subsonics - irrespective of reaction times that some may wax lyrical about.

[DarthAmerica]

yes it is - in fact fleet airborne ISR has been used since time immemorial to look for cruise missiles - and that includes using IR sensors.

Orions are also used (in Iraq currently) to watch for heat sigs on fast moving cruise missiles.

Thats why a fleet attack will need to broach a 300-450km window guarded by an AWACs as well as other organic sensor systems in play.

what you say has relevance for a non NATO navy more than 45 years ago - its certainly not the case now or since then.


I'm not questioning the use of IR as a part of a system. Only that it doesnt offer the same level of early warning that radar does. Also in the context of the scenario being debated which was penetration of the UK IAD. Its a non factor IMO.

[gf0012-aust]

I'm not questioning the use of IR as a part of a system. Only that it doesnt offer the same level of early warning that radar does. Also in the context of the scenario being debated which was penetration of the UK IAD. Its a non factor IMO.

Thats true if you look at threat identifiers in isolation - but no one does. On board systems are collaborative and have been a sympathetic package ever since the first primitive fighter solutions of 1969 (circa).

Look at F117's. F-14's, Tornado F3's etc... all use sympathetic systems which include IR as part of the ID package.

A lot of the ident work in GW1 was done by IR out of necessity as it was passive. Thats still the case now as IR has some clear advantages of going into contested but unannounced airspace.

[P.A.F]

all i have to say is that i disagree with the title of this topic. i think that the eurofighter, although costing a huge amount would deliever the much required performance once in full service. i'm sure the European countries in this project would make sure that the aircraft deliveres. i don't see any other rival at the moment except the F-22.

[DarthAmerica]

Thats incorrect though. We do know what its RCS is because its just a P800 with an indigenous guidance system. The internal changes made by the Indians don't change its RCS profile at all.

So it's not speculation at all. Its based on what we know of the original russian product which brahmos fundamentally mirrors in 99% of its external design.

As for the threat of a supersonic cruise missile - I've yet to come across any USN EW Officer who sees them as the bogey man articulated by the press. The counter systems in place still deal with supersonics as well as subsonics - irrespective of reaction times that some may wax lyrical about.

I'll trust that you actually do "know" the RCS because I dont think knowing it changes the arguement in favor of the defence. God forbid a shooting war breaks out and the Brahmos or other missile signature exhibits different characteristic via such things as RAM applied as a modification ect.

Also I'm not talking about the threat to just fleets and you know I'm not the type of poster who is easily excitable and hyperventilates over press releases. But I do acknowledge reality. And the reality is and many contancts of mine agree that significant gaps exist in the regard to cruise missile defense. Ignore it at your peril. Given your Wedgetail procurement I would say Oz understands the threat as well.

I dont believe in "El Cucuy". Just methods and counter methods.

[DarthAmerica]

Thats true if you look at threat identifiers in isolation - but no one does. On board systems are collaborative and have been a sympathetic package ever since the first primitive fighter solutions of 1969 (circa).

Look at F117's. F-14's, Tornado F3's etc... all use sympathetic systems which include IR as part of the ID package.

A lot of the ident work in GW1 was done by IR out of necessity as it was passive. Thats still the case now as IR has some clear advantages of going into contested but unannounced airspace.

Agreed but in those cases radar, on board or off board, was used to cue the IR sensors. And the threat at that time ended up not being primarily from low flying cruise missiles.

[DarthAmerica]

all i have to say is that i disagree with the title of this topic. i think that the eurofighter, although costing a huge amount would deliever the much required performance once in full service. i'm sure the European countries in this project would make sure that the aircraft deliveres. i don't see any other rival at the moment except the F-22.

Thank You for that response. But I have a question about your last sentence. At the moment how do you think the Eurofighter compares to the SU-30, F/A-18C, F-16 blk 52, F-16 blk 60, F-15E/SG/K and the F/A-18E? Think about it.

[WebMaster]

Reminder:



Do not disrespect anyone on this board - whether you disagree with them or agree with them. It is suggested that you keep your cool and show restraint when discussing important defence matters.
Civility will be adhered to on this forum or posts will get locked pronto.We've spent the last 12 months getting the unnecessary sarcasm and flippancy out of posts - I or the other Mods will not have it revert to the days when we had kids have arse rubbing competitions.

This forum is not here to create a venue for competition on opposing thoughts.

The title of this thread has been changed to be more user friendly. Also, please adhere to the warning above. As personal as this maybe for you or as much as you know about this topic, it still doesn't mean anyone should step out of their way to degrade the party with different perspective on Eurofighter project.

Enjoy!

[gf0012-aust]

Agreed but in those cases radar, on board or of board, was used to cue the IR sensors.

Definitely not the case with the F-117's. They went in cold with aerials retracted to reduce their signatures. Once they cleared their corridors, they had to travel 100-150km inside an active area only running on IR for passive detection. They couldn't get anything sensible out of local airborne ISR and were on their own. That meant passive IR.

And the threat at that time ended up not being primarily from low flying cruise missiles.

except for a fleet in progress, the organic AWACS uses everything to sense the real estate - and IR sats are also used to check the locale as well. IR is actually one of the tools de rigeur to sniff for cruise missiles.

[gf0012-aust]

Agreed but in those cases radar, on board or of board, was used to cue the IR sensors. And the threat at that time ended up not being primarily from low flying cruise missiles.

In the case of the F117 in GW1, Gw2 and 2003 they went in using IR only.

They have to as they retract their aerials when they leave the corridor - thus they aint getting much at all except what onboard passives bring to then table.

as for low flying cruise missiles, the main tool for AWACs is a combination of radar and IR - its not just radar.

IR is actually the primary system for detecting ballistic and mid ocean cruise missile launches. when we tracked Scuds from within australia it was basically using an IR hybrid system - not radar at all.

the point being that systems are used in companion and synpathetic mode

[LancerMc]

Former U.S.A.F. Chief of Staff John P. Jumper, gave praise to the Eurofighter as a great fighter. I have attached a link to the Air Forces article about his flight of the aircraft. If he thinks its good aircraft, that's good enough for me.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123010102

[DarthAmerica]

In the case of the F117 in GW1, Gw2 and 2003 they went in using IR only.

They have to as they retract their aerials when they leave the corridor - thus they aint getting much at all except what onboard passives bring to then table.


Thats not entirely true and I suspect you are probably aware of what I' suggesting.

as for low flying cruise missiles, the main tool for AWACs is a combination of radar and IR - its not just radar.

IR is actually the primary system for detecting ballistic and mid ocean cruise missile launches. when we tracked Scuds from within australia it was basically using an IR hybrid system - not radar at all.

the point being that systems are used in companion and synpathetic mode

Thats good but we arent talking ballistic missiles or ocean launched missiles. Granted though your point about sympathetic detection methods. However there are gaps and opportunities to be exploited. Particularly with regard to the UK vs Russia in the context being discussed. For all the 12 years of war leading up to OIF a primitive silkworm managed to get through this firmly established ISR picture that should have in theory been able to detect it. Admittedly though as a singular event.

[DarthAmerica]

Former U.S.A.F. Chief of Staff John P. Jumper, gave praise to the Eurofighter as a great fighter. I have attached a link to the Air Forces article about his flight of the aircraft. If he thinks its good aircraft, that's good enough for me.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123010102


It's good enough for me too! He is only comparing the flight performance which is not in question other than supercruise which the General makes clear isnt part of the equation.

"Despite being designed for different missions, General Jumper said the Eurofighter and the Raptor are equally high-tech aircraft.

"The Eurofighter is certainly, as far as smoothness of controls and the ability to pull (and sustain high G forces), very impressive," he said. "That is what it was designed to do, especially the version I flew, with the avionics, the color moving map displays, etc. -- all absolutely top notch. The maneuverability of the airplane in close-in combat was also very impressive."

The F/A-22 performs in much the same way as the Eurofighter, General Jumper said. But it has additional capabilities that allow it to perform the Air Force's unique missions.

"The F/A-22 Raptor has stealth and supercruise," he said. "It has the ability to penetrate virtually undetected because of (those) capabilities. It is designed to be a penetrating airplane. It can maneuver with the best of them if it has to, but what you want to be able to do is get into contested airspace no matter where it is." - Gen Jumper

He couldnt possibly be talking about avionics or stealthiness because there is a golden mile worth of difference. This is confirmation of my post by a fighter pilot.

[JWCook]

Hello again Darth...

I have a couple of questions which I'd like straight answers to.
When given proof that most normal people would accept, you reply:-

That doesnt prove anything.

You are simply quoting your opinion, (which I might add is in error on several counts) unless of course you can provide any credable reference to substantiate any of your opinions?? (HINT:- this time use one that doesn't directly contradict you.), I'm sorry if I don't count you as a credable source, but links you provide are either immaterial, or (more amusingly) contraditory to your opinions.

On costs again:-
When given details of the Austrian deal you simply dismiss it, here are the links (I'd be interested how you will dismiss these!!)
Austrian deal (in German):-
http://www.airpower.at/greymatter/archives/00000049.htm
Breakdown of costs in English (My translation)
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=718&highlight=typhoon+cost+austrian,

Thats simply not true. The Austian deal was heavily subsadized to spur exports. Whats funny about that is that even if you believe the misleading $76M USD number. The aircraft is significantly less capable than F-15E, F-16 blk 60 or F/A-18E in addition to being more expensive. Be careful using numbers like that because it is very missleading. Every defense aviation publication and expert agrees that the cost of the Eurofighter is higher than the number you listed.

OK Darth heres the challenge - Show me these some 'Every defense aviation publication and expert ' who rate the Typhoons price at $100M+ USD flyaway...

Darth these are the figures as given by the Austrian parliament, Hmmm. unless you think they are also mistaken...they did after all pay for them, so they really should know...

You also stated the AMSAR section on my website was in error! when asked what was in error your reply was:-

I would do so in private so as not to provoke the moderators.
I'm sure the moderators would like to know whats 'in error', just as I do, and I'm sure you could phrase it in such a way as not to offend anyone....

Can you provide any straight answers please.

Thank you

[gf0012-aust]

Thats not entirely true and I suspect you are probably aware of what I' suggesting.

The bit about going in inert with aerials down is absolutely true - documented by the pilots. Once in the corridor they were absolutely on their own. There is more than enough evidence that shows that even blue assets didn't know they were there and passed WVR and missed them.

RCS management was a huge issue and they were deliberately ordered to keep sensors retracted until they hit a defined corridor. Blue forces were invariably kept out of the corridor to minimise blue on blues, but the evidence of F-15's/F-16's not seeing them inbound to target is substantial.

Thats good but we arent talking ballistic missiles or ocean launched missiles. Granted though your point about sympathetic detection methods. However there are gaps and opportunities to be exploited. Particularly with regard to the UK vs Russia in the context being discussed. For all the 12 years of war leading up to OIF a primitive silkworm managed to get through this firmly established ISR picture that should have in theory been able to detect it. Admittedly though as a singular event.

None of the ISR capability thats available now was in place then - in fact the processing capability for data distribution is literally more than 100 times faster. The ISR snapshot capability is literally 5 times prev real estate "snaps" at a given altitude.

If you want to stick current capability in a temporal flux it has relevance - otherwise you're loading the bases to suit the argument. ;)

[P.A.F]

Thank You for that response. But I have a question about your last sentence. At the moment how do you think the Eurofighter compares to the SU-30, F/A-18C, F-16 blk 52, F-16 blk 60, F-15E/SG/K and the F/A-18E? Think about it.

All the fighters u mentioned are great and very capable. maybe some capabilities outweight that of the eurofighter. But if where talking about the overall aircraft strength then i personally would have to opt for the eurofighter to come out on top.

just have a browse through the website if you haven't done so already. i'll let you decide on the rest for yourself.;)
http://www.eurofighter.com/

[Ramjetmissile]

it just made me realised why singapore has the reputation of being taken as reference customer.its a soild stamp of approval.:D

[adsH]

I agree with this. And at the systems level, the Russians are able to overcome the RAF even in their weakend state. Of course this is partly due to sheer strength of numbers. But how you win doesnt matter at the end.




It's hard to say if you don't have a clear scenario defined for us to compare the two forces in. unit Attrition I’d say yes they'l eventually Beat us. hell they can throw rocks at us and eventually we'll cave in since.

But we're forgetting the most important aspect of any warfare, something that even dates back to Caesar’s Time. Logistics. There are very few forces that can match our Logistical capabilities and our Training regimes. Yes Russians can win if we fight them on there turf but i suspect they’ll struggle if we pull them out of the Pit hole.

You’re also forgetting our NEC Network enabled assets, our Extensive training in utilizing data link early warning system, we've even beaten the USAF in Mock-up skirmishes here in the UK using the E-3Ds with Tornado F3 through the JTIDS need I say more.


We’re rapidly developing and extending our long-range Information exchanging network capabilities. We’re building long-range Aerial bombing capabilities. I doubt we’ll let anyone off that easily.

[DarthAmerica]

Hello again Darth...



OK Darth heres the challenge - Show me these some 'Every defense aviation publication and expert ' who rate the Typhoons price at $100M+ USD flyaway...

Darth these are the figures as given by the Austrian parliament, Hmmm. unless you think they are also mistaken...they did after all pay for them, so they really should know...

You also stated the AMSAR section on my website was in error! when asked what was in error your reply was:-


I'm sure the moderators would like to know whats 'in error', just as I do, and I'm sure you could phrase it in such a way as not to offend anyone....

Can you provide any straight answers please.

Thank you


I'll answer the first part and for the second you would have to deal with me in private. The cost of the Eurofighter in Austria as lowered and subsidied by offsets to spur sales.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/printer_476.shtml

[DarthAmerica]

The bit about going in inert with aerials down is absolutely true - documented by the pilots. Once in the corridor they were absolutely on their own. There is more than enough evidence that shows that even blue assets didn't know they were there and passed WVR and missed them.

RCS management was a huge issue and they were deliberately ordered to keep sensors retracted until they hit a defined corridor. Blue forces were invariably kept out of the corridor to minimise blue on blues, but the evidence of F-15's/F-16's not seeing them inbound to target is substantial.http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/printer_476.shtml

I dont doubt that the aerials were retracted. But I think there is more to this than is being disclosed. I cant tell if you are unaware or just being careful. Doesnt matter though, I understand your point about the effects on RCS and the use of IR in this case.

[JWCook]

I'll answer the first part and for the second you would have to deal with me in private. The cost of the Eurofighter in Austria as lowered and subsidied by offsets to spur sales.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/printer_476.shtml

Sorry Darth Can't see any prices mentioned there!!,
There was this obscure bit though...
Aloysius Rauen, EADS' chief executive officer for military programmes, told (George Mader) in an interview for Jane's, in summer 2002: "No other customer will ever get the Austrian price for Tranche 2 [Eurofighter again]..

This is quite amazing when you consider the Austrain deal was signed in July 2003.
and The contract price for the Tranche 2 was signed in December 2004!!.

The negotiations with all four partners in 2004 were centred around the Typhoon being made cheaper, Austria was also told that they would not be disadvantaged by the new lower price.

Now how can you make a statement from Aloysius from 2 years before the reduced price contract was signed your centre peice, on how expensive the Typhoon is?

Surely if all experts and defence magazines concur with your assesment of a US100M+ Flyaway Typhoon it would be a breeze to link to one..
(preferably a recent comment post Dec 2004 would do...).

Heres the challenge again - Show me these 'Every defense aviation publication and expert ' who rate the Typhoons price at $100M+ USD flyaway...

Come on its that simple!!

As for the private discussion please leave a PM...

Cheers

[tphuang]

Sorry Darth Can't see any prices mentioned there!!,
There was this obscure bit though...
.

This is quite amazing when you consider the Austrain deal was signed in July 2003.
and The contract price for the Tranche 2 was signed in December 2004!!.

The negotiations with all four partners in 2004 were centred around the Typhoon being made cheaper, Austria was also told that they would not be disadvantaged by the new lower price.

Now how can you make a statement from Aloysius from 2 years before the reduced price contract was signed your centre peice, on how expensive the Typhoon is?

Surely if all experts and defence magazines concur with your assesment of a US100M+ Flyaway Typhoon it would be a breeze to link to one..
(preferably a recent comment post Dec 2004 would do...).

Heres the challenge again - Show me these 'Every defense aviation publication and expert ' who rate the Typhoons price at $100M+ USD flyaway...

Come on its that simple!!

As for the private discussion please leave a PM...

Cheers

Just a little question here, isn't there a difference between flyaway cost and market price though? I'd assume EADS would want to turn some form of profit on export sales, so the market price would be higher than the flyaway cost.

[DarthAmerica]

Just a little question here, isn't there a difference between flyaway cost and market price though? I'd assume EADS would want to turn some form of profit on export sales, so the market price would be higher than the flyaway cost.


Yes there is which is why I havent responded to the previous questions which are being worded to suggest that I was refering to "flyaway" cost. Thats why my figures ranged from 100 to 130 million USD to cover the range. As to which is more important, well thats obvious. And yes EADS would build in some profit as would any aerospace company.

[JWCook]

LOL Darth you refered to UNIT FLYAWAY COST... for the JSF, thats not a system price..

Darth you seem to be getting confused with Flyaway costs and full system price, it would be best if you compare flyaway to flyaway because if you compare the JSF flyaway to the Typhoons full system price as you have done that would give the false impression the JSF is drastically cheaper!!.

System costs cannot be made like for like, surely you can even you see the error of this, all experts in the field and defence magazines know this, and that quantitys of weapons would squew the results one way or the other, thats why flyaway price is the benchmark used.

For those that are interested - 7% was the profit margin on Typhoon this was asked to be waived for the first export customers (I have no information/evidence if this was ever actually waived), the Tranche 2 negotiations were seeking a 10-20% cost reduction (once again the actual figure has not been released but the UK was said to be happy with the new price).

Darth you seem to have had a go at the Typhoon in lots of areas, citing vague sources that often contradict you..

Oh and re:- My websites information on AMSAR (I'm still awaiting the PM!!).

Cheers

[DarthAmerica]

System costs cannot be made like for like, surely you can even you see the error of this, all experts in the field and defence magazines know this, and that quantitys of weapons would squew the results one way or the other, thats why flyaway price is the benchmark used.

Oh and re:- My websites information on AMSAR (I'm still awaiting the PM!!).

Cheers


Bottom line on cost. Typhoon is overpriced 4th Generation fighter and offers far less capability overall when compared to the latest 4th Gens. And compared to the JSF not only is it overpriced by double, but its entirely outclassed. Even so there may be merit for a partner nation to purchase because of the industrial benefits associated with production. There may even be a nation with political reasons for not buying Russian or US like Saudi Arabia. But beyond that the Typhoon just doesnt offer the kind of performance that other less expensive types can.

[JWCook]

Bottom line on cost. Typhoon is overpriced 4th Generation fighter and offers far less capability overall when compared to the latest 4th Gens. And compared to the JSF not only is it overpriced by double, but its entirely outclassed. Even so there may be merit for a partner nation to purchase because of the industrial benefits associated with production. There may even be a nation with political reasons for not buying Russian or US like Saudi Arabia. But beyond that the Typhoon just doesnt offer the kind of performance that other less expensive types can.

Thats your opinion, and as I said before its a fine opinion to have apart from the obvious - i.e.
It flys in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Contradicts every expert opinion.
Ignores the aviation press.

I am forced to conclude that we are in the presence of some one whos convictions are not swayed by the facts and someone who's debating style is severely hampered by choosing links and articles which support the opposing view... Its funny really, its like masturbating with a cheese grater, fun at first - but mostly painful:-).

Here's a saying that I should take heed of in future:- arguing with an idiot has it perils. It is very likely that you will win, but if you do win, no one cares. You've just beaten an idiot.

Oh nearly forgot to mention I won't be holding my breath for the PM.


Good bye:ban

[DarthAmerica]

Thats your opinion, and as I said before its a fine opinion to have apart from the obvious - i.e.
It flys in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Contradicts every expert opinion.
Ignores the aviation press.

Thats the opinion of Singapore and South Korea as well.

I am forced to conclude that we are in the presence of some one whos convictions are not swayed by the facts and someone who's debating style is severely hampered by choosing links and articles which support the opposing view... Its funny really, its like masturbating with a cheese grater, fun at first - but mostly painful:-).

And I concluding that I am not able to have a different opinion that yours without being insulted. So much for professionalism.

Here's a saying that I should take heed of in future:- arguing with an idiot has it perils. It is very likely that you will win, but if you do win, no one cares. You've just beaten an idiot.

I would say that if you look at all the other post you would see that rather that argueing. We discuss our disagreement to reach mutual understandings of each others points of view. Not one gets insulted.

Oh nearly forgot to mention I won't be holding my breath for the PM.


Good bye:ban




I choose personal corespondence carefully.

[gf0012-aust]

you two need to stay away from each other.

this is like the "good old days" when pakistani and indian posters in here went ballistic at each other... :grab

agree to disagree and find other sparring partners.

[Scorpion82]

I read nearly all posts of this thread and I now I want to give away my "2 cent" on that topic. I don't insert directly quotes from you but speak about some topics.

1.) Supercruise:
In the first post you doubt the Typhoon can supercruise at all, later you switched to "not combat usable".
Please tell me what the EJ200 thrust and overall fuel consumption of the Typhoon is at 36000 ft and above? Let me guess you don't know.
For sure the Typhoon isn't a supercruiser like the F-22A, but flies faster without reheat than any other operational fighter in service. As long as you can't come up with exact figures how long (or short) the Eurofighter can hold supersonic speeds of Mach 1,2+ I suggest you to skip the topic, instead of presenting your opinion as facts.
Only for info:
According to an industrial source the Eurofighter reached Mach 2 with external tank and at least 6 AAMs.

2.) AESA:
The most fighters is service are still using mechanical scanned array (MSA) radars. CAESAR as mentioned is an AESA demonstrator for the Captor radar. Maybe it's only available from 2011, but why should the radar be limited or more worse than other AESA designs. The AN/APG-63 is nothing other than a mechanical array radar, with AESA being retroffited in newer version.
But you state this radar as more advanced and capable as the Captor, which is a newer and more capable radar than the APG-63/70 series with MSA.
The Captor has already sufficient tracking performance, functionality and a high range. It fits the requirements for the moment and will be replaced with AESA in the not to distant future.
As you can't know about the Captor AESA production version capabilities don't allege things and present them as fact!
Additionally Europe is working on AESA technology since years and Captor as well as RBE2 and other radar systems will built on common less expansive T/R-modules. Also I'm sure the current AN/APG-63V2/3 are more expensive to purchase than the older versions, so what do you want to express with statements like "AESA will further increase purchasing costs"?

3.) Costs:
The 180 EF2000 for the german Luftwaffe will cost ~85 mio. € each (system price!). For the 68 tranche 2 examples the Luftwaffe pays ~61 mio. € per aircraft (fly away cost). So also the austrian cost can be seen as representive!

For the F-35:
Originally the US wanted to buy ~3000 JSF for 28-38 mio. USD each, and with total programm costs of 200 bln $. So what's fact for now?
~2000 aircraft for 45-61 million $ and total programm costs of 276 bln $. Can you guarantee the costs will not rise? No you can't and within such a short time the JSF programm costs has been risen by ~40%!
If you divide total programm costs through the number of aircraft (276 bln/2000) you get a system price of 138 mio. $. Ok we don't know exact numbers yet, but experiences of other project show the tendency that costs will further rise while numbers being reduced.

4.) Eurofighter VS Legacy fighters:
Sure from the technological standpoint current versions of F-15, F-16 etc. have many similar systems on board. But are they all equiped with the numerous systems as the Typhoon? Mostly not. Further more the Eurofighter stand at its beginning of operational service and has a lot of growth potential. Upgraded F-15/16 etc. have now similar capabilities to the baseline Eurofighter configuration (Block 5) but their growth potential is nearly reached.

So does Europe would have sticked better with another type? Hardly. Maybe the Rafale but no other fighter now has the performance (overall), growth potential and is currently available as the Eurofighter.


5.) The Eurofighter programm:
In fact the Eurofighter programm was started on december 16th 1983. Early studies were done, but that doesn't mean the aircraft was developed for 30-40 years. Further more look at when the USAF thought about a new fighter to replace the F-15. It was the later 1970's, but developement did not begun until the 80's. In 1985 USAF wanted the ATF to enter production in 1992. It actually entered it in 2001/2. The russians weren't even able to bring their MiG MFI or Su-47 to that standard and they are now developing a new aircraft the T-50. To sum it up, yes the Eurofighter is late and more expensive than originally intended but which new fighter aircraft isn't it too?


Scorpion

[DarthAmerica]

I read nearly all posts of this thread and I now I want to give away my "2 cent" on that topic. I don't insert directly quotes from you but speak about some topics.

1.) Supercruise:
In the first post you doubt the Typhoon can supercruise at all, later you switched to "not combat usable".
Please tell me what the EJ200 thrust and overall fuel consumption of the Typhoon is at 36000 ft and above? Let me guess you don't know.
For sure the Typhoon isn't a supercruiser like the F-22A, but flies faster without reheat than any other operational fighter in service. As long as you can't come up with exact figures how long (or short) the Eurofighter can hold supersonic speeds of Mach 1,2+ I suggest you to skip the topic, instead of presenting your opinion as facts.
Only for info:
According to an industrial source the Eurofighter reached Mach 2 with external tank and at least 6 AAMs.



Speak only for yourself. I do know for a fact. Let me tell you its measurable in seconds. As for your source, scrap it. Not only is that a BS(Brochure Statistic). But its not true in any operational sense. Eurofighter does not and can not supercruise any more than an F-14 could. And it is not the fastest fighter without after burner either.



2.) AESA:
The most fighters is service are still using mechanical scanned array (MSA) radars. CAESAR as mentioned is an AESA demonstrator for the Captor radar. Maybe it's only available from 2011, but why should the radar be limited or more worse than other AESA designs. The AN/APG-63 is nothing other than a mechanical array radar, with AESA being retroffited in newer version.
But you state this radar as more advanced and capable as the Captor, which is a newer and more capable radar than the APG-63/70 series with MSA.
The Captor has already sufficient tracking performance, functionality and a high range. It fits the requirements for the moment and will be replaced with AESA in the not to distant future.
As you can't know about the Captor AESA production version capabilities don't allege things and present them as fact!
Additionally Europe is working on AESA technology since years and Captor as well as RBE2 and other radar systems will built on common less expansive T/R-modules. Also I'm sure the current AN/APG-63V2/3 are more expensive to purchase than the older versions, so what do you want to express with statements like "AESA will further increase purchasing costs"?


CAPTOR is outdated and has cost the Eurofighter at least two potential export orders. CAESAR or whatever its called will be many times less capable than US designed AESA arrays in this timeframe. Again, stop assuming what I know.



3.) Costs:
The 180 EF2000 for the german Luftwaffe will cost ~85 mio. € each (system price!). For the 68 tranche 2 examples the Luftwaffe pays ~61 mio. € per aircraft (fly away cost). So also the austrian cost can be seen as representive!

For the F-35:
Originally the US wanted to buy ~3000 JSF for 28-38 mio. USD each, and with total programm costs of 200 bln $. So what's fact for now?
~2000 aircraft for 45-61 million $ and total programm costs of 276 bln $. Can you guarantee the costs will not rise? No you can't and within such a short time the JSF programm costs has been risen by ~40%!
If you divide total programm costs through the number of aircraft (276 bln/2000) you get a system price of 138 mio. $. Ok we don't know exact numbers yet, but experiences of other project show the tendency that costs will further rise while numbers being reduced.

4.) Eurofighter VS Legacy fighters:
Sure from the technological standpoint current versions of F-15, F-16 etc. have many similar systems on board. But are they all equiped with the numerous systems as the Typhoon? Mostly not. Further more the Eurofighter stand at its beginning of operational service and has a lot of growth potential. Upgraded F-15/16 etc. have now similar capabilities to the baseline Eurofighter configuration (Block 5) but their growth potential is nearly reached.

So does Europe would have sticked better with another type? Hardly. Maybe the Rafale but no other fighter now has the performance (overall), growth potential and is currently available as the Eurofighter.


Sorry but your data is incorrect. In 2012 the Eurofighter will not have reached the capability of year 2000 fighters in US service or in developement. Eurofighter is at the lower end of the spectrum when compared to ANY new or evolved US fighter.

[Scorpion82]

Speak only for yourself. I do know for a fact. Let me tell you its measurable in seconds. As for your source, scrap it. Not only is that a BS(Brochure Statistic). But its not true in any operational sense. Eurofighter does not and can not supercruise any more than an F-14 could. And it is not the fastest fighter without after burner either.


You are the guy who alleged Eurofighter isn't that capable, so not me or anyone else is in the duty to proove it, but you! In fact you can't do that so I suggest to stop alleging such things.


CAPTOR is outdated and has cost the Eurofighter at least two potential export orders. CAESAR or whatever its called will be many times less capable than US designed AESA arrays in this timeframe. Again, stop assuming what I know.

At least Singapore might be interested in AESA, but there were other reasons stated. Which one was else lost? South Korea gets an mechanical array radar (AN/APG-63V1).


Sorry but your data is incorrect. In 2012 the Eurofighter will not have reached the capability of year 2000 fighters in US service or in developement. Eurofighter is at the lower end of the spectrum when compared to ANY new or evolved US fighter.

Show me one evolved US fighter which is so superior to Typhoon and more important back up it. People say much when time is long. In fact there were enough persons already claiming Eurofighter Typhoon's superiority compared to the US teen series fighters. And I don't speak about a manufacturer saying that, but about air force pilots, from different airforces even the US. Even in it's current form with not all capabilities which will form the baseline.

Ah yes what data is incorrect and why?

Sorry you seem not be able to back up any of your statements and I strongly assume your opinion might be subjective due to national pride or something similar. No offence only a thought.

[DarthAmerica]

Show me one evolved US fighter which is so superior to Typhoon and more important back up it.

I'm only responding to whats relevant. Everything else is just your opinion which is fine. But just to deal specifically with this one rhetorical quesion. ANY of the latest evolutions of the F-Teens currently in service is superior overall to the Eurofighter.

By what criteria are you judging the Eurofighter? Its easy to nit pick at my post. But you arent exactly in a position to ask me to back anything up when

a. You havent singled out anything specific or identified your own positions

b. You havent backed up your criticism

If there is some specific reason you feel the Eurofighter is competetive against an F-Teen then by all means lets read it. Otherwise we will be running around in circles with opinions.


References:

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/index.htm
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/index.htm
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article10.html

[Scorpion82]

I'm only responding to whats relevant. Everything else is just your opinion which is fine. But just to deal specifically with this one rhetorical quesion. ANY of the latest evolutions of the F-Teens currently in service is superior overall to the Eurofighter.

By what criteria are you judging the Eurofighter? Its easy to nit pick at my post. But you arent exactly in a position to ask me to back anything up when

a. You havent singled out anything specific or identified your own positions

b. You havent backed up your criticism

If there is some specific reason you feel the Eurofighter is competetive against an F-Teen then by all means lets read it. Otherwise we will be running around in circles with opinions.


Ok so I will start at first with the hint, that I'm referring to the Eurofighter Typhoon Block 5 (basic configuration with austere AG-capability). I will add comments for further standards.


Compared to the teen series of US fighters the Eurofighter Typhoon has at first a more advanced design. Typhoon's aerodynamics, flight controll systems and even the engines and materials used are more advanced than that used for F-15, F-16 or F/A-18. Without doubt are the newer F-100 and F-110 engines godd designs, but they reached their limits, while the EJ-200 has a lot of growth potential.
The result of all the features is an aircraft which will outperform the 3 US fighters in nearly all performance areas, and more important combat relevant areas too.
Only the F-15 has the range advantage, but it's a much larger aircraft too.

Additionally Typhoon has a reduced frontal RCS. In a typical AA-configuration it's a bit more difficult to detect the Typhoon than a F-16 for example. Only the F/A-18E maybe competetive in that direction, but the Superbug lakes performance.

Compared to the US teen series the Eurofighter provides real STOL capabilities too.

The aircraft is also better maintainable than the US teen series, but to be fair the newer F-16 Block 60 should have some more computer supporter maintainance system as well.

Coming to the cockpit. Eurofighter Typhoon does not rely on paper checklists, as all the various checklists are available in electronical format, as for the F-22. Typhoon's cockpit provides VTAS controlls (HOTAS+DVI) compared to the HOTAS only US teen series.

Avionics of the Eurofighter Typhoon has in the baseline configuration all the systems US teen series fighters have in their evolved versions.
Navigational suit include for example LINS/GPS, radar altimeter, TACAN, ILS/MLS, DME-P, DMG and GPWS. At least GPWS is rare to non existent to the US teen series fighters currently in service.

Autopilot for the Eurofighter is much more effective than that of the US teen series which are only able to maintain altitude and attitude, catch up and hold heading to waypoint, terrain following in flight direction with associated systems.
Typhoon's autopilot will catch and hold speed, altitude and heading for cruise flight, including auto-terrain following. It will automatically to a locked target, fly CAPs, making auto-approachs (only Hornet can that too from the US teen series) etc.

Eurofighter Typhoon also includes full life cycle engine and structure stressing monitoring and recording systems (a feature that helps to maintain the aircraft).

Eurofighter self defence suit include ESM, LWR, MAW, ECM, TRD as well as deployables and is fully automated. The Us teen series is lacking MAW and LWR, mostly TRD too and these aircraft are only using RWRs, not the more capable ESM like the Eurofighter or the F-22/35 for example.

Also only using a mechanical array the Captor outperforms every mechanical array radar in service be it AN/APG-63V1, AN/APG-68V9 or AN/APG-73. And currently the most US teen series fighters in service are using such radars and not the newer AN/APG-63V3, AN/APG-80 and AN/APG-79. But these US radar systems are already available and some aircraft are using them.
However looking at the APG-80 is has not a better range or can't track a higher number of targets than the Captor in it's current form. But for sure AESA radars are superior due to agile beaming, multibeaming and all the advantages that result from this technology.
As you know Captor AESA is already under developement and testing. Already in the AMSAR project it was studied to use this technology not only for standard radar purposes, but also for new functions like radar warning, jamming and even datalinking is studied (the US studies such possibilities too). At all the Captor is still sufficient and will probably be replaced by a compareable or better AESA version. With around 1500 T/R modules such a Captor has more potential than AN/APG-79/80 with ~1000 modules.
And for your information Europe already fielded AESA radar systems in service, but only ground based and navale. Don't exspect "us" to be be that behind...
Eurofighter Typhoon is additionally equiped with the PIRATE IRST/FLIR. I don't know about the nearer capabilities of the F-15K's IRST or F-16E's FLIR, but it looks like they are not that flexible as the PIRATE (if only used as FLIR or IRST).
MIDS-LVT datalinks is common standard on all new western fighters, so no advantage here for any type.
Typhoon's Striker helmet includes HMD, HMS and optional NVC/E. The Night Vision cameras have a field of view of 40°, compared to the narrow field of conventional NVGs used by the US teen series. Even FLIR pictures can be displayed on the HMD and the HMD is already very HuD like. JHMCS of the US teen series fighters provides at least display and cueing functions, but will it be able to display night vision/FLIR pictures? Has a eye tracking capabilities as Striker?
The last thing in the avionics area I won't to speak about the sensor fusion and EMCON does the evolved US teen series incooperate? It's not that I couldn't imagine that, but I have never ever heared or read about sensor fusion for a F-15, F-16 or F/A-18. Maybe you have there other informations?
Eurofighter Typhoon uses sensor fusion as well as EMCON technologies similar to the F-22, while I'm not completly sure about the EMCON functionality in the Eurofighter.

When it comes to weapons all newer western types today are using highly advanced and effective weapon systems. To be honest the Eurofighter is currently very limited and not competetive in the AG domain. But that will change in the not to distant future. In typical configurations Typhoon will be able to deploy more weapons than the F-16 or F/A-18. Only the much larger F-15 has an advantage here.

So summing the short comparison up, I can't see why the Eurofighter Typhoon should be inferior to the US teen series.
And why in hell all military analysts, experts and also pilots confirm the Eurofighter as a superior platform?

[DarthAmerica]

When it comes to weapons all newer western types today are using highly advanced and effective weapon systems. To be honest the Eurofighter is currently very limited and not competetive in the AG domain. But that will change in the not to distant future. In typical configurations Typhoon will be able to deploy more weapons than the F-16 or F/A-18. Only the much larger F-15 has an advantage here.

So summing the short comparison up, I can't see why the Eurofighter Typhoon should be inferior to the US teen series.
And why in hell all military analysts, experts and also pilots confirm the Eurofighter as a superior platform?


Again, dealing only with whats relevant to the discussion. Not that the other parts of your post arent informative. Its just that they are more akin to comparing creature comforts and preferences between BMW's and Benz's and arent a good measure of capability. But as you are conceding. THe Eurofighter is very limited in its multirole capability and in air to air it lacks a competitive radar. The US radars in the evolved teens series are by far more capable than CAPTOR in almost every measurable way to include range and that also includes the APG-80. In terms of payload the F-16 is about as close as the Eurofighter will get but to be fair I no longer consider absolute payload to be important beyond certain limits that my analysis says all major modern designs surpass. Never the less the F-Teens exceed the Eurofighters payload maximum and diversity by considerable margins. In terms of RCS the Eurofighter is most likely to be in the region of some RCS reduced designs but suffers from the disadvantage of a mechnanical dish which is not very good against passive or active detection. The F/A-18E is clearly the stealthiest of all these aircraft but down in the region where these aircraft RCS is and with external ordinance the differences are so minor as to be rough equivilents except when compared to AESA equipped F-Teens which will have superior stealth characteristics including RCS.

In terms of growth potential, you would notice that the F-Teens have evolved into the F-22/35. Also the F-teens themselves have the room for bmore powerful engines, more avionics and fuel. The UAE experience shows that if a customer is willing and wants an evolved F-Teen, the sky is the limit. And no one in the industry questions the superiority of a F-16 Blk 60 over the Eurofighter. The evolved F-15 has already proven superiority at the platform level to the Eurofighter as a multirole platform so I wont go into more detail for now other than to point you in the direction of Singapore and South Korea. In the case of the F/A-18E, well of course its the most advanced of all in terms of multirole capability and its a 5th Generation design thats continuing to extend its capabilities futher ahead. Your swipe at flight performance is ignorant of the fact that the Super Hornets roles are far more diverse and include carrier compatibility. Something the UK sorely regrets not having in the Typhoon as the ITARS controversy shows. So we can say the Eurofighter suffers from poor Naval fighter performance? Do you see where I'm going with this? The flight performance is a non issue as all of these types are designed for different roles originally with the exception of the F/A-18E which was a multirole platform from the beginning.

So to sum this up, all the Military Experts and analyst do not agree that the typhoon is more advanced than the F-Teens. I am one of those who disagrees if we are talking about over all combat capability. And within the scope of our comparison which was the evolved F-Teens vs the Eurofighter, even you conceeded the F-Teens are superior. The market agrees with that assessment as well. Of course feel free to discuss the more evolved proposed Eurofighter blocks. If some of the capabilities are realised it may be superior to some of the evolved teens by then but that will be because the US Defense aviation industry has moved on to the 5th Generation F-22, F-35 and F/A-18E and will be withdrawing the US F-Teens with few exceptions. So your evolved Eurofighter will have to be compared vs the F-22/35, F/A-18E and evolved F-15E variants.

[Scorpion82]

Please don't get me wrong, I didn't conceded the Teen series to be superior to the Eurofighter, but that their multirole capabilities are currently more evolved. In fact if you compare the F-35 to the Eurofighter you will simply come to the same result. The F-35 is simply not flying yet and its technologies aren't fully developed. Sp what to do when you want to compare both types? Right you take the proposed baseline and compare it to the other platform.
I strongly assume you underesteminate the Eurofighter Typhoons radar. Yes the mechanical scanned array is outdated at all, but the Captor is still one of the best performing and most advanced fighter radars in the world. Captor is not early 80's technology as you claim. No doubt the mechanical array technology isn't up to date, but I get the feeling that you limit many things to to few factors. Air combat isn't a matter of radar performance only as well as overall capabilities can't be limited to radar and stealth only!
About Korea or Singapore that says nothing! You simply exclude politics and other facts and that seems to be your problem. You have to take a look from all directions.
About RCS of Eurofighter and F/A-18E say me what is their specific RCS from different angels? Again you reduce the topic to one thing the radar antenna. Only for your information Typhoon's radom will not allow radar frequencies to pass the radom except it's own as it is the case for the F-22...
The F-22 is in my opinion wthout a doubt the best AA-fighter in the world but it is also the most expensive and not that flexible due to its design.

[DarthAmerica]

Please don't get me wrong, I didn't conceded the Teen series to be superior to the Eurofighter, but that their multirole capabilities are currently more evolved. In fact if you compare the F-35 to the Eurofighter you will simply come to the same result. The F-35 is simply not flying yet and its technologies aren't fully developed. Sp what to do when you want to compare both types? Right you take the proposed baseline and compare it to the other platform.
I strongly assume you underesteminate the Eurofighter Typhoons radar. Yes the mechanical scanned array is outdated at all, but the Captor is still one of the best performing and most advanced fighter radars in the world. Captor is not early 80's technology as you claim. No doubt the mechanical array technology isn't up to date, but I get the feeling that you limit many things to to few factors. Air combat isn't a matter of radar performance only as well as overall capabilities can't be limited to radar and stealth only!
About Korea or Singapore that says nothing! You simply exclude politics and other facts and that seems to be your problem. You have to take a look from all directions.
About RCS of Eurofighter and F/A-18E say me what is their specific RCS from different angels? Again you reduce the topic to one thing the radar antenna. Only for your information Typhoon's radom will not allow radar frequencies to pass the radom except it's own as it is the case for the F-22...
The F-22 is in my opinion wthout a doubt the best AA-fighter in the world but it is also the most expensive and not that flexible due to its design.



More evolved or better known as superior. What ever you want to call it as I'm not going to get bogged down by semantics. As far as the Typhoons radar it is indeen a development of the 1970's 1980's technology. It may be decent next to other mechanical arrays of its day but it is entirely outclassed now and would be a negative attribute today. AESA radars are the diefining feature of any modern fighter. Without it you are at an immediate and almost insurmountable disadvantage. Also the Typhoon's nose cone doesnt only pass the CAPTORs Tx. Who told you that? Its a band pass system and vulnerable within a very exploitable frequency range. I'm not underestimating anything regarding the Typhoon. Its simply not competitive next to the evolved F-Teens. Also Im not going to quote any RCS numbers because in isolation that would be meaningless. There are a great many factors to be considered and specific details are not available. I do know without question that the F/A-18E is both more capable and more survivable than the Typhoon especially against other fighters. US Defense Aviation industry has far more technical and combat experience with aircraft survivability and the funding to make the marketing claims and R&D a reality. Thats a fact.

As far as politics goes they play a part and are a valid consideration. If you are dependent on an external source for your spares and/or to come to your assistance in emergency then you better have proper interoperability/integration. Is Europe going to commit thousands of lives and billions in materials to the defense of South Korea or Singapore? No, case closed. But in addition to the politics the aircraft themselves, F-15K and F-15SG were superior and better suited to the customers requirements. Greater range, payload, diversity of payload, combat proven systems and much greater platform flexibility. Add to that far more advanced Radar/Avionics. Thats also a fact. Your making whats called category error with regard to the F-35 so there is no point in developing that futher except to say that your assumptions are wrong. Bottom line is that there isnt a single scenario where an evolved teen would'nt offer superior performance than a Typhoon. The only possible exception may be MH/FH but that remains to be seen for the F-15K and F-15SG.

Also your comment regarding the F-22 is incorrect. The F-22, just like the Typhoon, can carry external ordinance. Unlike the Typhoon though, it has an AESA which offers the potential for far more a2g AND EW capability. Also unlike the Typhoon the F-22 actually supercruises and can operate as a true stealth penetrating platform and is comparitively invulnerable to threats that the Typhoon would face. In a head to head comparisson a Typhoon would be detected by the F-22 at distances measured in the "hundreds of km" while not being able to detect the F-22 via CAPTOR until < 20~10 km. Enourmous difference.

[Scorpion82]

More evolved or better known as superior. What ever you want to call it as I'm not going to get bogged down by semantics. As far as the Typhoons radar it is indeen a development of the 1970's 1980's technology. It may be decent next to other mechanical arrays of its day but it is entirely outclassed now and would be a negative attribute today. AESA radars are the diefining feature of any modern fighter. Without it you are at an immediate and almost insurmountable disadvantage. Also the Typhoon's nose cone doesnt only pass the CAPTORs Tx. Who told you that? Its a band pass system and vulnerable within a very exploitable frequency range. I'm not underestimating anything regarding the Typhoon. Its simply not competitive next to the evolved F-Teens. Also Im not going to quote any RCS numbers because in isolation that would be meaningless. There are a great many factors to be considered and specific details are not available. I do know without question that the F/A-18E is both more capable and more survivable than the Typhoon especially against other fighters. US Defense Aviation industry has far more technical and combat experience with aircraft survivability and the funding to make the marketing claims and R&D a reality. Thats a fact.

As far as politics goes they play a part and are a valid consideration. If you are dependent on an external source for your spares and/or to come to your assistance in emergency then you better have proper interoperability/integration. Is Europe going to commit thousands of lives and billions in materials to the defense of South Korea or Singapore? No, case closed. But in addition to the politics the aircraft themselves, F-15K and F-15SG were superior and better suited to the customers requirements. Greater range, payload, diversity of payload, combat proven systems and much greater platform flexibility. Add to that far more advanced Radar/Avionics. Thats also a fact. Your making whats called category error with regard to the F-35 so there is no point in developing that futher except to say that your assumptions are wrong. Bottom line is that there isnt a single scenario where an evolved teen would'nt offer superior performance than a Typhoon. The only possible exception may be MH/FH but that remains to be seen for the F-15K and F-15SG.

In fact you do nothing else than dribbling arround with the same nothing proving statements. I see there is no need to further discuss with you as you don't come up with some facts. Instead you alleging things repeating them again and again without backing them up.
So believe what you want, it's your good right to do that...

[DarthAmerica]

In fact you do nothing else than dribbling arround with the same nothing proving statements. I see there is no need to further discuss with you as you don't come up with some facts. Instead you alleging things repeating them again and again without backing them up.
So believe what you want, it's your good right to do that...

Don't lose your cool. Everthing I told you is true and if you are in the business or do the digging, you could verify yourself. Feel free to dispute anything I say.

[Scorpion82]

Sorry Darth but bla bla neither impresses me nor convinces me or someone else. I tried to lead a serious discussion but you are not willed or incapable in doing so.
I came up with facts and some data, also it was only a slight approach. Your answer is
Again, dealing only with whats relevant to the discussion.

So please specify what's relevant! If you want to compare aircraft with each other you have to define what you want to compare and identify which parameters and factors are relevant for that and then simply doing it by analysing the available facts and data, maybe with some more knowledge you can also estaminate some things which then come close to the reality.

Everthing I told you is true

Not true but YOUR truth. Your truth is your opinion but that means nothing. You are free to express your opinion, but as long as you can't effectivly back up your arguments it has no value.

in air to air it lacks a competitive radar.

Typhoon's radar is still very good at all and AESA alone will not make an F-16 or F/A-18E a much better or superior fighter compared to the Eurofighter. AA combat depends on much more factors than stealth and radar technology only. Super sonic performance, passive target detection, tracking and identification are as important as self defence systems, SA and weapons.

For radar systems the future definitely belongs to the AESA technology, which is without doubt far superior to MSA in capabilities and performance. But what does it mean for a F/A-18E or F-16E VS Eurofighter scenario? The Eurofighter will be able to detect and track the opposite at the same or larger distance. And as mentioned often enough AESA technology in Europe is more advanced than you might think. CAESAR was realized within 3 years ad is only the beginning.
And again how many F-15, F-16 or F/A-18 flying out there have AESA? Has the USN received a single Super Hornet equiped with the AN/APG-79 and fielded it? How much F-15s are flying with AESA except the 18 F-15C in Alaska? F-16E/F is currently the only US fighter fielded in larger numbers with the UAE using an AESA radar. According to my current information the AN/APG-80 has a low detection range than the current Captor and it can't even track a larger number of targets at once at the same time.

Also your comment regarding the F-22 is incorrect. The F-22, just like the Typhoon, can carry external ordinance. Unlike the Typhoon though, it has an AESA which offers the potential for far more a2g AND EW capability. Also unlike the Typhoon the F-22 actually supercruises and can operate as a true stealth penetrating platform and is comparitively invulnerable to threats that the Typhoon would face. In a head to head comparisson a Typhoon would be detected by the F-22 at distances measured in the "hundreds of km" while not being able to detect the F-22 via CAPTOR until < 20~10 km. Enourmous difference.

Specify what's inccorrect in my comment! I have no doubt the F-22 being superior in AA combat to the Typhoon, but as mentioned at twice the cost and with flexibility. Compare current platform configurations or future ones, but don't compare Eurofighter now with the F-22 in a 2010 configuration.
In terms of flexibility the Raptor will dramatically reduce its stealth capabilities if carrying external stores. Further more how much different AG weapons will be integrated into the Raptor and what tasks can fullfilled with Block 20 or 30?

I do know without question that the F/A-18E is both more capable and more survivable than the Typhoon especially against other fighters.

Back it up with some facts and data.

US Defense Aviation industry has far more technical and combat experience with aircraft survivability and the funding to make the marketing claims and R&D a reality. Thats a fact.


More experience doesn't mean Europe has no compareable capabilities. You seem to forget or not know about the experiences Europe has made. We were also fighting along with you in Iraq, Afghanistan or Kosovo for example...
But honestly I don't care what you think about Europes capabilities in that direction.

And no one in the industry questions the superiority of a F-16 Blk 60 over the Eurofighter.

So come on prove it. What makes an F-16 Blk 60 superior and don't limit to the radar only.

F-15K and F-15SG were superior and better suited to the customers requirements. Greater range, payload, diversity of payload, combat proven systems and much greater platform flexibility. Add to that far more advanced Radar/Avionics.

The main problem was the desired time frame where different capabilities has to be available. Sure the F-15 is combat proven and currently more flexibile as the Typhoon hasn't even reached its basic configuration, but that will be in the not to distant future.

US F-Teens with few exceptions. So your evolved Eurofighter will have to be compared vs the F-22/35, F/A-18E and evolved F-15E variants.

Do you want to tell me the F/A-18E to be a generation ahead of Eurofighter? In fact you probably do not know that in Europe the generation definition is another. Types stated as 4th generation in russia or the US are defined as 3rd generation in Europe. Logically you call F-22 5th generation in the US and the Eurofighter 4th generation in Europe. In fact both aircraft belong to the same generation at all, but then maybe some will define 5th generation with stealth only...

[Scorpion82]

Another thing related to the Captor radar

As far as the Typhoons radar it is indeen a development of the 1970's 1980's technology.

The AESA technology is at least a developement of that time too. Ground based ESA radars where available back in the 1970's/80's. I don't want discuss the advantages of AESA as they are clear to everyone who deals with that matter.
But to prove the oppisite of the argument Captor is a 1970's/80's technology radar show me a single fighter radar of that time including ALL the features of Captor I will list here:
- 4 servo motors for antenna movement
- data adaptive scanning technology
- modular design concept
- calculation power of 3 bln operations per second for the radar computer
- automatic selection of PRF best suited to the situation and operating mode
- interleaving of AA and AG-modes at the same time
- 3rd data processing channel (used in the Captor for much better ECCM)
- NCTR
- Raid assessment
- trace following
- 3-D picture generation of the airspace
- TWS within the FULL azimuth coverage
- SAR mapping with 1 m resolution
- automatic identification and priorization of targets tracked

[Giblets46]

Will be interested to see what happens if the CAESAR radar is added to the Typhoon for Tranche 2 (for any customers), it is due to be tested in a Typhoon this autumn (fall). I can see the Saudi's opting for it, and any other export customers, as well as possibly the RAF.
As it was, the singaporeans were supposedly very impressed with the Captors range/ performance.

[Giblets46]

Will be interested to see what happens if the CAESAR radar is added to the Typhoon for Tranche 2 (for any customers), it is due to be tested in a Typhoon this autumn (fall). I can see the Saudi's opting for it, and any other export customers, as well as possibly the RAF.
As it was, the singaporeans were supposedly very impressed with the Captors range/ performance.

[DarthAmerica]

Will be interested to see what happens if the CAESAR radar is added to the Typhoon for Tranche 2 (for any customers), it is due to be tested in a Typhoon this autumn (fall). I can see the Saudi's opting for it, and any other export customers, as well as possibly the RAF.
As it was, the singaporeans were supposedly very impressed with the Captors range/ performance.

CAESAR is still in development and wont be available before 2011 or so. But because its a retrofit there isnt any reason why a customer could'nt order it as an option to be added on when its available.

[DarthAmerica]

Typhoon's radar is still very good at all and AESA alone will not make an F-16 or F/A-18E a much better or superior fighter compared to the Eurofighter. AA combat depends on much more factors than stealth and radar technology only. Super sonic performance, passive target detection, tracking and identification are as important as self defence systems, SA and weapons.

For radar systems the future definitely belongs to the AESA technology, which is without doubt far superior to MSA in capabilities and performance. But what does it mean for a F/A-18E or F-16E VS Eurofighter scenario? The Eurofighter will be able to detect and track the opposite at the same or larger distance. And as mentioned often enough AESA technology in Europe is more advanced than you might think. CAESAR was realized within 3 years ad is only the beginning.

This(above) statement is both false and contradictory. Perhaps you would like to rewrite it in case you are being misunderstood. Otherwise it doesnt make logical sense.


Specify what's inccorrect in my comment! I have no doubt the F-22 being superior in AA combat to the Typhoon, but as mentioned at twice the cost and with flexibility. Compare current platform configurations or future ones, but don't compare Eurofighter now with the F-22 in a 2010 configuration.
In terms of flexibility the Raptor will dramatically reduce its stealth capabilities if carrying external stores. Further more how much different AG weapons will be integrated into the Raptor and what tasks can fullfilled with Block 20 or 30?

Full stealth features arent necessary after the first stages of the conflict. Also with external stores the Raptor will still have considerable survivability advantages over legacy aircraft when carrying external stores.



Back it up with some facts and data.

When is the last time a Typhoon landed on a carrier, acted as a Tanker, had a dedicated EW variant, could carry all USN ordinance, deliver JDAM to multiple targets or in the standard versions conduct Information Warfare or electronic attack?


More experience doesn't mean Europe has no compareable capabilities. You seem to forget or not know about the experiences Europe has made. We were also fighting along with you in Iraq, Afghanistan or Kosovo for example...
But honestly I don't care what you think about Europes capabilities in that direction.

You should, I've been witness to and participant in. But thats up to you.



So come on prove it. What makes an F-16 Blk 60 superior and don't limit to the radar only.

That would be a category error if we are talking about modern combat aircraft.

[Scorpion82]

This(above) statement is both false and contradictory.

And again you say nothing. Guy come in begin to specify your statements. I can reject on this senseless bla bla.

Full stealth features arent necessary after the first stages of the conflict. Also with external stores the Raptor will still have considerable survivability advantages over legacy aircraft when carrying external stores.


Right but it doesn't improve the flexibilty at all. But that's no reason to worry about at all as the Raptor wasn't designed as a multirole fighter.

When is the last time a Typhoon landed on a carrier, acted as a Tanker, had a dedicated EW variant, could carry all USN ordinance, deliver JDAM to multiple targets or in the standard versions conduct Information Warfare or electronic attack?


So and what exactly makes the SH more survivable? The things you are claiming have nothing to do with the topic. It's the usual bla bla meaning nothing.

That would be a category error if we are talking about modern combat aircraft.

Please clarify that. At first you allege F-16 blk 60 is superior and now you are coming up with that. Do you even know what you are talking about?

[Giblets46]

CAESAR is still in development and wont be available before 2011 or so. But because its a retrofit there isnt any reason why a customer could'nt order it as an option to be added on when its available.

According to the manufacturers:
"The Eurofighter partner firm source said CAESAR, which could be test flown on a Eurofighter this year, would require “only a few hours” of work for retrofitting, swapping out the antenna and the power supply."

"Having been fully integrated and tested on the ground, the CAESAR system is currently on loan to the CECAR evaluation program,” "

This would demonstarte that, although the partner nations have not included it in their own purchases it will be ready for use far earlier.

The ECR-90 was always designed to have the AESA radar later, so fitting it will be far easier than other conversions.

[DarthAmerica]

According to the manufacturers:
"The Eurofighter partner firm source said CAESAR, which could be test flown on a Eurofighter this year, would require “only a few hours” of work for retrofitting, swapping out the antenna and the power supply."

"Having been fully integrated and tested on the ground, the CAESAR system is currently on loan to the CECAR evaluation program,” "

This would demonstarte that, although the partner nations have not included it in their own purchases it will be ready for use far earlier.

The ECR-90 was always designed to have the AESA radar later, so fitting it will be far easier than other conversions.

What you are reading about is the demonstration unit not a production unit. Its a little different and much much more costly. I have worked with prototypes and preproduction units and there is a difference between what it cost to make the demonstrator and what it cost to mass produce. When the CAESAR reaches production status sometime after 2010 then yes, it will take only small efforts to retrofit. 2010+ isnt that far away anyway. As a historical reference for how long these processes take. Look at the APG-79 which will reach operational status near the end of this year.

http://www.raytheon.com/products/apg79aesa/

A lot of things took place between 2000-2006. It would be highly optimistic and unlikely for CAESAR to be available anytime before 2011 and thats still pushing it considering this is a first for European Defense Aviation. But if they meet or beat that timeframe then great! I have seen nothing that indicates that will.

When CAESAR does arrive though and assuming it works properly it will be a huge monkey off of the back of the Typhoon. The unfortunate thing is that in that timeframe the F-35 will be on the market in force at half the price.

[DarthAmerica]

And again you say nothing. Guy come in begin to specify your statements. I can reject on this senseless bla bla.



Right but it doesn't improve the flexibilty at all. But that's no reason to worry about at all as the Raptor wasn't designed as a multirole fighter.



So and what exactly makes the SH more survivable? The things you are claiming have nothing to do with the topic. It's the usual bla bla meaning nothing.



Please clarify that. At first you allege F-16 blk 60 is superior and now you are coming up with that. Do you even know what you are talking about?



Your post are unnecessarily confrontational in a forum that IMV is somewhat biased. e.g. I've made similar comments toward others and the Mods edited them out. I personally like arguement and could care less about how we talk so long as I am able to respond in kind which is not the case here. If you would like to discuss this then I would ask if you could make an effort to control the sarcasm and any form of personal references about what I know or dont know. Our post speak for themselves about knowledge and I'm confident with what I've already said to you. If you still have questions then feel free to ask but do so in a way more akin to dialogue rather than arguement. And if you could limit yourself to one ot two questions at a time that would make the discussion flow better and prevent digressions.

Thanks
DA

[Scorpion82]

The unfortunate thing is that in that timeframe the F-35 will be on the market in force at half the price.

And if Mr. president say the Iraq has nukes you believe him right? Sorry Darth but you are to naive! The F-35 is already much more expensive than exspected and be sure it will not cost the half of a Eurofighter! Already now the F-35 has reached an 54-61 million $ system price and I'm sure we'll see even further increases. So already now F-35 is not much cheaper than a Typhoon and in the long term I would not count on the F-35 as a low cost fighter.

[Scorpion82]

Your post are unnecessarily confrontational in a forum that IMV is somewhat biased. If you would like to discuss this then I would ask if you could make an effort to control the sarcasm and any form of personal references about what I know or dont know. Our post speak for themselves about knowledge and I'm confident with what I've already said to you. If you still have questions then feel free to ask but do so in a way more akin to dialogue rather than arguement. And if you could limit yourself to one ot two questions at a time that would make the discussion flow better and prevent digressions.

Thanks
DA

It's up to us both. Simply suggest an area where to start and then we can do it. In fact I asked you exactly 2 questions within the last post, is that to much for you?
You are running circles saying nothing and that starts to bore me. Start a serious discussion bringing up some fatcs and data or let it. But safe your and my time if you aren't able/or don't want to do that. You avoid nearly every specific question of mine and counter it with your vacuousness statements.

[Giblets46]

I would suggest that the CAESAR is more like the APG-63 upgrade than the entirely new APG-79, with the added bonus that it was always intended to have the AESA upgrade.

In terms of the time span, now that industry has chosen to take the lead in order to improve their export prospects instead of waiting for the governments funding i think we will see production versions far earlier, (take a look how quickly they ironed out problems with the Tornado F3 as soon as they got an export customer for it!)

[JWCook]

Hi Scorpion

The CEASAR program was privatley funded by Selex Sensors and Airborne Systems as they saw an opportunity to include it in the Saudi deal...

This infers that a production radar would be available long before 2011.


Cheers

[DarthAmerica]

I would suggest that the CAESAR is more like the APG-63 upgrade than the entirely new APG-79, with the added bonus that it was always intended to have the AESA upgrade.

In terms of the time span, now that industry has chosen to take the lead in order to improve their export prospects instead of waiting for the governments funding i think we will see production versions far earlier, (take a look how quickly they ironed out problems with the Tornado F3 as soon as they got an export customer for it!)

That's certainly plausible. There is a huge incentive to sell the Eurofighter and the three most damaging lack of features has been timeliness of delivery, multirole capability and AESA. There are considerable efforts to address all these issues. The question is how soon. IMV, and this is speculation to an extent, how fast can the production facilities be brought online? How much will it cost? These are determined by demand and market forces. I would say that most of the technological hurdles have been jumped in regard to performance. Keep in mind CAESAR is more akin to a bigger APG-80 due to its than it is a APG-63(V2)/APG-63(V3)/77/79/81. This is also in the interest of time. But then that leads to another speculative question. How limited will export APG-81 or potentially APG-79 be? If they arent downgraded then CAESAR will have some serious disadvantages. Some possibly offset by customer requirements. But diadvantages none the less. I wonder what a CAESAR successor would be like. I guess we may have to see what types of radars end up on the various Euro UAV/UCAVs because I think Europe may not pursue indigeonous manned fighter technology past the 4th Gen Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen.

[Aussie Digger]

I've been monitoring this discussion, but until now, have refrained from posting.

Several things are clear to me.

Darth, you are making numerous arguments against the capability provided by Typhoon.

Arguments that Singapore and Sth Korea didn't choose it and thus obviously it lacks capability compared to Teen series are specious and show a disregard for the realities of these respective competitions. The F-15 also beat out Rafale, Super Hornets, SU-27/30, evolved MiG-29, F-16 and Mirage variants.

The Typhoon AND Rafale similarly beat the Teen series fighters (with the sole exception of F-15) AND Russian fighters in the short listing process. That they are well informed customers is a fact that you use in your arguments against Typhoon, but then overlook the fact that it beat ALL these others types, even in Tranche 1 configuration.

If a Tranche II or III Typhoon could have been offered it may have been a very different story. The fact is that Typhoon is an aircraft at the very EARLY stages of it's development.

You boast about the capability of F-15/16/18 series fighters but ignore the fact that they've all had 20 years+ development SINCE they entered operational service. Typhoon has only JUST entered service.

Do you seriously think Spain and Italy, which ARE operators of advanced "legacy" F/A-16/18 series fighters, would have opted for Eurofighter if it DIDN'T offer greater capability now as well as through it's development?

The truth is that Eurofighter will become an amazingly capable aircraft. Germany has already conducted "heavy load" testing with 4x 2000lbs Enhanced Paveway II GBU-10, 3x AMRAAM and 3x drop tanks and 2x IRIS-T carried last month. (http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_005872.php)

Spain is also currently conducting IRIS-T integration as we speak (type) and they will be operational in 2007.

F-35A and F-22 MAY exceed it, but nothing else on earth is likely too.

[DarthAmerica]

Darth, you are making numerous arguments against the capability provided by Typhoon.

Arguments that Singapore and Sth Korea didn't choose it and thus obviously it lacks capability compared to Teen series are specious and show a disregard for the realities of these respective competitions. The F-15 also beat out Rafale, Super Hornets, SU-27/30, evolved MiG-29, F-16 and Mirage variants.

There is nothing specious about my arguement. You are welcome to challenge any aspect of my arguement. Many others tried that before each of these competitions and ALL were shown to be wrong. Also the last sentence is completely out of context and divorced from anything posted by me.

The Typhoon AND Rafale similarly beat the Teen series fighters (with the sole exception of F-15) AND Russian fighters in the short listing process. That they are well informed customers is a fact that you use in your arguments against Typhoon, but then overlook the fact that it beat ALL these others types, even in Tranche 1 configuration

Thats absolutely false on a number of levels to include the fact that the F-16 has also been selected more than once as a preference to the Eurofighter.

If a Tranche II or III Typhoon could have been offered it may have been a very different story. The fact is that Typhoon is an aircraft at the very EARLY stages of it's development.

"If" and "Will Be" are common themes surrounding the EUrofighter. An aircraft with origins that date back to the 1970's. The thing is Tranche II was offered and Tranche III is only a paper airplane at this point.

You boast about the capability of F-15/16/18 series fighters but ignore the fact that they've all had 20 years+ development SINCE they entered operational service. Typhoon has only JUST entered service.


Yes, about a Decade or more late. Thats part of the problem and one of the criticisms that I made originally.

Do you seriously think Spain and Italy, which ARE operators of advanced "legacy" F/A-16/18 series fighters, would have opted for Eurofighter if it DIDN'T offer greater capability now as well as through it's development?

I dont just think it, I know it and have proved it. But I undersand the political, economic and industrial reasoning behind the choice which is sound logic and I also stated that.

The truth is that Eurofighter will become an amazingly capable aircraft. Germany has already conducted "heavy load" testing with 4x 2000lbs Enhanced Paveway II GBU-10, 3x AMRAAM and 3x drop tanks and 2x IRIS-T carried last month.

Spain is also currently conducting IRIS-T integration as we speak (type) and they will be operational in 2007.

F-35A and F-22 MAY exceed it, but nothing else on earth is likely too.

Another "Will Be". Thats not the truth either. The truth is that EVERY ONE of the latest Teen evolutions by far exceed the Typhoons current or proposed capabilities. the F-22/35 are simply on an entirely different level altogether such that its not practical to compare them.

I have no doubt that the Eurofighter will eventually be a world class 4th Generation fighter and be competitive against most of the threats it would face. At best it will rival the latest Rafale/Gripen/Mig-35/F-16 blks as those platforms are its nearest competitors. But once you get to the F-15's, F/A-18E, F-22/35 and evolved SU-27's the Eurofighter will be soundly outclassed all things considered.

[Big-E]

I'm actually suprised that the best thing EU countries can come up with is the Typhoon, I would have thought they would go 5th gen... I would rather fly a Super Hornet against a Typhoon and it's almost half the price!

[DarthAmerica]

The truth is that Eurofighter will become an amazingly capable aircraft. Germany has already conducted "heavy load" testing with 4x 2000lbs Enhanced Paveway II GBU-10, 3x AMRAAM and 3x drop tanks and 2x IRIS-T carried last month. (http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_005872.php)


Truth is the F-15 has been fighting wars with similar or greater loads for about 20 years now.

Operation Desert Storm circa 1991:

http://www.f-15estrikeeagle.com/weapons/loadouts/graphics/ods_01.gif

Today, each weapon could be aimed at different widely spaced targets:

http://www.chinalakealumni.org/IMAGES/2002/87-0180%20F-15E%2030APR02%20USAF%20020507-52.jpg

The Super Hornet could do this the netcentric way:

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q2/060418b_nr.html



Forgot to mention this. But I dont recall reading the presence of a litening pod so that bomb laden Typhoon wouldnt even be able to deliver the payload without a second aircraft or somebody on the ground painting the target all while within the lethal engagement envelope of point defenses and assuming weather or battlefield conditions permit the use of LGB's.

[DarthAmerica]

I'm actually suprised that the best thing EU countries can come up with is the Typhoon, I would have thought they would go 5th gen... I would rather fly a Super Hornet against a Typhoon and it's almost half the price!


I think had the Cold War not ended so abruptly the Eurofighter would have been in service about a decade earlier which would have made it a nice competitor to the pre blk 60 F-16 and F/A-18C. But rather than scrapping the program when it was no longer relevant the political and economic interest took over and here we are a decade later with a fighter that still cant do the things and F-16/18 could in the late 1990's to sa nothing of the evolved variants.

The EU would very much liked to have been able to produce a European 5th Generation Fighter(Using the common public perception of aircraft generation classification) but technological and financial limitations being what they are they bought into American F-35's to fill that niche.

[Aussie Digger]

There is nothing specious about my arguement. You are welcome to challenge any aspect of my arguement. Many others tried that before each of these competitions and ALL were shown to be wrong. Also the last sentence is completely out of context and divorced from anything posted by me.



Thats absolutely false on a number of levels to include the fact that the F-16 has also been selected more than once as a preference to the Eurofighter.



"If" and "Will Be" are common themes surrounding the EUrofighter. An aircraft with origins that date back to the 1970's. The thing is Tranche II was offered and Tranche III is only a paper airplane at this point.




Yes, about a Decade or more late. Thats part of the problem and one of the criticisms that I made originally.



I dont just think it, I know it and have proved it. But I undersand the political, economic and industrial reasoning behind the choice which is sound logic and I also stated that.



Another "Will Be". Thats not the truth either. The truth is that EVERY ONE of the latest Teen evolutions by far exceed the Typhoons current or proposed capabilities. the F-22/35 are simply on an entirely different level altogether such that its not practical to compare them.

I have no doubt that the Eurofighter will eventually be a world class 4th Generation fighter and be competitive against most of the threats it would face. At best it will rival the latest Rafale/Gripen/Mig-35/F-16 blks as those platforms are its nearest competitors. But once you get to the F-15's, F/A-18E, F-22/35 and evolved SU-27's the Eurofighter will be soundly outclassed all things considered.

You have proven nothing. Your statements have been contradictory, to try and suit the comments made by other knowledgeable posters. State WHY you know something or HOW, or else why bother trying to convince us? Where have YOU obtained this knowledge from? The sources you have provided to date, have in the main, contradicted your OWN arguments.


I specifically discussed the selection of Eurofighter, Rafale and F-15 in both Korea AND Singapore because of the number of times YOU quoted it as evidence in this discussion. In each OF THESE cases evolved teen series fighters (besides F-15) HAVE contested against Eurofighter and HAVE NOT been shortlisted.

As to your F-16 comments, can you explain which Country has chosen F-16 OVER Eurofighter in a "fly off" competition? Eurofighter BEAT F-16 in Austria even when cheap second-hand variants were available. Perhaps the UAE chose F-16 over Eurofighter in a new competition, (though I can't find a source to this effect) and I can't think of anyone else who might have.

Greece has recently announced it intends to restart it's Eurofighter acquisition instead of itaking up it's additional F-16 options and Saudi Arabia has recently announced Typhoon over further F-15 buys.

As to the F-15E loadouts (I hope you aren't referring to F-15C's, you never made that clear though). The Eurofighter recently carried 5x AAM's, 3x drop tanks and 4x 2000lbs GBU's (3x BVR, as opposed to the WVR only missiles on that diagram), plus it will carry Litening III targetting pods once integrated. A considerably greater load than that displayed on the diagram you provided.

As to Typhoon continues to develop so will it's capabilities. You refer to it's inferior range but compare the clean aircraft to teen series fighters fitted with CFT's, ignoring in the process that the Typhoon program has these under development, along with greater thrust to maintain it's agility (that the Teen fighters have benefitted from).

I accept it has a delayed development, but then so has the Super Hornet, the F-22 and so most likely will F-35A . It is increasingly rare for a modern defence project NOT to be delayed. This is the basis for me calling your arguments specious.

Platforms you compare capabilities with have had the same problems, yet you ignore them and only criticise Typhoon (in these discussions). "If "and "will be" are the exact same issues surrounding F-22, JSF, Rafale and mostly SH, yet you have not criticised ANY of these aircraft to nearly the same degree, glossing over any problems they have encountered.


You lambast the Typhoon and state "it's not even on the same level as F-22" yet ignore that due to cost overruns and development problems, virtually ALL A2G capability has been stripped from F-22, leaving it unable to fill most air combat tasks. Previously planned upgrades to restore these capabilities have been cancelled in favour of an additional 4 airframes and an extended production run.

Give the Typhoon a quarter of the development period the teen fighters have had, when it hits full operational capability and then you'll have a reason to criticise if not up to speed. By 2012, the full Block II capability will be in place, AIM-9L/M, AMRAAM, Meteor, ASRAAM, IRIS-T will be integrated, Litening III, Enhanced Paveway II/III/IV will be integrated, Storm Shadow and Tauras long range standoff weapons and others such as JDAM, JDOW and HARM will also be integrated.

The in-development CTF's, increased thrust engines, increased capability EWSP and possibly TVC engine nozzles and CAESAR radar will also be in-service or "available".

Very FEW capabilities will then be available on other aircraft, that Typhoon can't do.

Big-E have you flown the Typhoon? You might be surprised. John Jumper certainly was...

I await the inevitable response...

[DarthAmerica]

You have proven nothing. Your statements have been contradictory, to try and suit the comments made by other knowledgeable posters. State WHY you know something or HOW, or else why bother trying to convince us? Where have YOU obtained this knowledge from? The sources you have provided to date, have in the main, contradicted your OWN arguments.


First of all I am not at all interested in convincing you or anybody else of anything. I am stating my opinions based on years of experience with these matters including first hand knowledge and inside contacts. What you take away from these post is up to you. If you have a different point of view thats fine. If you wish to debate those points of view even better. But if at the end of the day you dont change your opinion then so be it. But to date almost every analysis I've ever done or opinion I have ever offered in regard to military aircraft has been correct.

Second I think if you read carefully what I am saying here. You would find that our opinions arent all that different at the points of origin and at the conclusions. But somewhere in between the Eurofighter has gained an ill deserved cult following that attributes a superiority that does not exist when compared to its contemporaries and vanishes all together in the face of later generations. ANY EVOLVED F-TEEN will easily outclass the Eurofighter in overall combat performance today and through 2012. In the case of the F-15SG, F-15K, F-16E and F/A-18E this lead will almost certainly continue. None of these platforms are near the limit of their growth potential and considerable interest for their evolution exist and its backed my many times more money and manpower than Europe could ever throw into the Eurofighter. And unlike the multinational Eurofighter, these platforms are not mired in the political mess that inhibits the Eurofighter. Take a look at the Rafale which is already more developed than the Eurofighter and it was started AFTER the Eurofighter.

Finally, you acknowlegde that the Eurofighter is not at the same level of capability as the F-teens through 2012. See Below...

"Give the Typhoon a quarter of the development period the teen fighters have had, when it hits full operational capability and then you'll have a reason to criticise if not up to speed. By 2012, the full Block II capability will be in place, AIM-9L/M, AMRAAM, Meteor, ASRAAM, IRIS-T will be integrated, Litening III, Enhanced Paveway II/III/IV will be integrated, Storm Shadow and Tauras long range standoff weapons and others such as JDAM, JDOW and HARM will also be integrated." ---Aussie Digger

...All things F-Teens have been doing for 10 to 20 years!

And you futher acknowledge that a FEW, to use your words, will still exceed it then. Ok well let me help you to define that short list. Late model F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-22 and F-35's. Thats five fighter platforms. And I havent even discussed the SU-27 series or future Russian and possibly Chinese designs.

[Aussie Digger]

First of all I am not at all interested in convincing you or anybody else of anything. I am stating my opinions based on years of experience with these matters including first hand knowledge and inside contacts. What you take away from these post is up to you. If you have a different point of view thats fine. If you wish to debate those points of view even better. But if at the end of the day you dont change your opinion then so be it. But to date almost every analysis I've ever done or opinion I have ever offered in regard to military aircraft has been correct.

Second I think if you read carefully what I am saying here. You would find that our opinions arent all that different at the points of origin and at the conclusions. But somewhere in between the Eurofighter has gained an ill deserved cult following that attributes a superiority that does not exist when compared to its contemporaries and vanishes all together in the face of later generations. ANY EVOLVED F-TEEN will easily outclass the Eurofighter in overall combat performance today and through 2012. In the case of the F-15SG, F-15K, F-16E and F/A-18E this lead will almost certainly continue. None of these platforms are near the limit of their growth potential and considerable interest for their evolution exist and its backed my many times more money and manpower than Europe could ever throw into the Eurofighter. And unlike the multinational Eurofighter, these platforms are not mired in the political mess that inhibits the Eurofighter. Take a look at the Rafale which is already more developed than the Eurofighter and it was started AFTER the Eurofighter.

Finally, you acknowlegde that the Eurofighter is not at the same level of capability as the F-teens through 2012. See Below...

"Give the Typhoon a quarter of the development period the teen fighters have had, when it hits full operational capability and then you'll have a reason to criticise if not up to speed. By 2012, the full Block II capability will be in place, AIM-9L/M, AMRAAM, Meteor, ASRAAM, IRIS-T will be integrated, Litening III, Enhanced Paveway II/III/IV will be integrated, Storm Shadow and Tauras long range standoff weapons and others such as JDAM, JDOW and HARM will also be integrated." ---Aussie Digger

...All things F-Teens have been doing for 10 to 20 years!

And you futher acknowledge that a FEW, to use your words, will still exceed it then. Ok well let me help you to define that short list. Late model F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-22 and F-35's. Thats five fighter platforms. And I havent even discussed the SU-27 series or future Russian and possibly Chinese designs.

So why start a thread and argue about it going on to 7 or 8 pages?

If you are so convinced the Typhoon is inadequate, prove it? An un-supported opinion is worthless in a discussion. Back up your claims, if you can, or don't bother discussing these things. Nothing is a fact unless you can verify it. IF you can't or won't do it publicly, again, why bother starting up such a discussion?

IF you CAN prove it, I'm sure Italy, Spain, Germany, Great Britain, Austria, Saudi Arabia, Greece and probably Turkey will be VERY interested to hear it. I have no doubt they consider Eurofighter WILL be more capable than their respective Teen series or equivalent fighters. Given the degree to which they are no doubt informed, I find it difficult to see how you could argue with them.

To address a few of your capability points, in the current "Air International" magazine (June 2006), they provided an update on the progress of the EF-2000 (as the Spaniards call it, not having adopted the Typhoon moniker) in Spanish service, in an interview with the pilots of the Spanish integration unit, they stated that the "EF-2000 has a 50% greater detection range than Spain's existing upgraded F/A-18A/B's".

It also mentions the Eurofighters ability to climb to 40,000ft only a minute, 40 seconds AFTER brakes release, implying a considerably greater performance advantage over it's existing F/A-18 and Mirage fighters... Each Spanish Hornet driver, will also have to have a minimum of 2000 hours on the Hornet, prior to converting to Eurofighter.

I hardly think they'd "rave" about their new "mounts" if they are as in-capable as you THINK.

In Spanish service, the Eurofighter has not yet entered operational service. It is expected to do so, by the start of 2008. Yet by 2010, they expect to have IRIS-T, AMRAAM, Litening III, GBU-10/12/16 and possibly Meteor in-service.

Would you like to compare this to the level of capability provided by F/A-18, F-16 with 2 years of service under it's belt??? Neither could lase their own LGB's and F-16 had no BVR missile capability at that point whatsoever and couldn't even fight at NIGHT...

As to JSF, it won't be operational in 2012. LRIP "Block 1" variants will be delivered to customers, but won't be allowed to fly outside the US due to a lack of airworthiness certification. RAAF is expecting to get it's JSF's in Australia and issued to 2 OCU in 2013, with IOC anywhere between 2014 and 2015. This is IF the program goes as smoothly as promised.

RAAF's F-35A's will be ordered either late this year or in 2007...

Full operational status for F-35A Block II variants is not expected until 2015-2017. Given that the JSF precusor program (JAST) program kicked off in 1994, that adds up to 23 years of development, prior to full operational capability, according to my basic math.

The advanced tactical fighter program (F-22 precursor) began in 1981 and achieved IOC in December 2005. Full operational capability is many years off yet. Seems to be about 25 years of development and production to me, with numerous well documented delay's...

I wouldn't be too harsh on EADS myself, particularly if you compare it to US industry. They have differed little in development time taken on next generation aircraft developments...

As to the 2012 capability issue. I beg to differ, I believe for the reasons stated above, that Eurofighter WILL achieve a greater level of capability than ANY teen series fighter by 2012. In certain roles, it is more capable NOW (WVR A2A combat for instance) than the majority of teen series fighters and it's NEW. Given the development time it will achieve far greater capability.

If you want to argue semantics, than teen series fighters are also MORE capable than JSF and probably F-22 right NOW, as they are obviously more mature.

The same argument exists for Arleigh Burke destroyers and the DD(X) destroyer. Would you care to argue that DD(X) won't be more capable?