EuroFighter Tycoon

Author
Discussion

williamp

19,213 posts

272 months

Saturday 17th July 2010
quotequote all
Not a lot at all..

Perosonally although the Typhoo is an excellent aircraft, and fits down to a tea, I still prefer the looks of the Tornado F3 and, when I was a lad that was the aircraft I wanted to be in.

baldy1926

2,136 posts

199 months

Saturday 17th July 2010
quotequote all
What was the final outcome with the gun saga?

Eric Mc

121,779 posts

264 months

Saturday 17th July 2010
quotequote all
I am sure those pilots who are moving on to the Typhoon will not be too sorry to see the back of the Tornado F3.

MudasarKhan

Original Poster:

92 posts

166 months

Saturday 17th July 2010
quotequote all
Reply to Jonny.

First I heard about UK being a potential customer. But nonetheless very good news if it goes through. clap

I do know Canada has ordered 65 for $9billion. And that Turkey have become involved. Japan was refused the F-22, so they may be buying the F-35 instead.

It's quickly becoming the new F-16. A Multi Role Combat Aircraft with a large export programme.

With regards to nukes, I would differ that we are a big player. Israel may have more nukes than the UK, Pakistan and India combined.

We obviously need a deterent, no question there, but I dont think Trident is the way forward. IMO.

Edited by MudasarKhan on Saturday 17th July 16:12

Eric Mc

121,779 posts

264 months

Saturday 17th July 2010
quotequote all
What should the RAf use for air defence?

Are you implyiong that UK airspace doesn't need to be defended.

The Typhoon has some impressive BVR capability.

And the "old enemy" hasn't exactly gone away either.




Eric Mc

121,779 posts

264 months

Saturday 17th July 2010
quotequote all
Because EVERY advantage is worth having. I am sure the Typhoon is optomised for a BVR engagement - but any fighter pilot worth his salt will value having an agile fighter under him as well as fast one. Ask all those chaps who fly F-16s, F-15s and MiG 29s - and ask those pilots who are gladly giving up their Tornado F3s.

Also, ask those American pilots who rode into Vietnamese skies in their missile toting, non-agile Phantoms thinking they were going to have it all their opwn way.

aeropilot

34,299 posts

226 months

Saturday 17th July 2010
quotequote all
digimeistter said:
aeropilot said:
XG332 said:
Are we not getting the F-35 when if its finished?
EFA smile
Is it not already finished?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10648250
Finished aircraft undergoing test flying still doesn't mean they will ever enter service ..... plenty of excellent test aircraft have been canned before full scale production... wink
TSR2 for example.

There's huge pressure on the US defense budget as well as our own, and there's still talk of 1 of the 3 versions of the F-35 getting chopped, and the odds would be the Dave B which the USMC/RAF/RN would be buying, as this is the most expensive of the three versions and the the most pointless........




Tango13

8,395 posts

175 months

Saturday 17th July 2010
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Because EVERY advantage is worth having. I am sure the Typhoon is optomised for a BVR engagement - but any fighter pilot worth his salt will value having an agile fighter under him as well as fast one. Ask all those chaps who fly F-16s, F-15s and MiG 29s - and ask those pilots who are gladly giving up their Tornado F3s.

Also, ask those American pilots who rode into Vietnamese skies in their missile toting, non-agile Phantoms thinking they were going to have it all their opwn way.
100% Nail on head

The USAF & USN went to war in Veitnam with the F4 Phantom convinced that the the gun was obsolete and the long range missle was king.

They were wrong.

The inital kill ratios for both the USN & USAF at the start of the air war were 2:1 ie two Migs for one Phantom. Irrespective of cost of aircraft etc you will not win a war fighting that way.

The USN took a very hard look at itself and took some very difficult decisions which resulted in TOPGUN and a total overhaul of the way they fought the F4 against the Migs. The USAF kept blundering along convinced they were on the right track.


The USN finished the war with a 12:1 kill ratio and decisvely won the air war the USAF was still on 2:1

One thing the Typhoon needs is a gun for the simple reason that if you are using tracer rounds you will scare the st out of who ever you're shooting at. If they are scared/distracted there is more chance they will make a mistake and a mistake in ACM is usualy fatal.

@ Eric get a copy of "Scream of eagles" by R.K Wilcox ISBN 0-671-74566-2

edditted four spooling


Edited by Tango13 on Saturday 17th July 18:49

dr_gn

16,140 posts

183 months

Saturday 17th July 2010
quotequote all
Did I just stumble upon a TOP GUN audition biggrin

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Saturday 17th July 2010
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Britain has a small number of tycoons. Some are approaching obsolescence and will need to be replaced fairly soon - especially imn view of the growing threat from the east.

Not successful in the bomber role, unfortunately....


bitwrx

1,351 posts

203 months

Saturday 17th July 2010
quotequote all
MudasarKhan said:
Reply to Jonny.

With regards to nukes, I would differ that we are a big player. Israel may have more nukes than the UK, Pakistan and India combined.

We obviously need a deterent, no question there, but I dont think Trident is the way forward. IMO.

Edited by MudasarKhan on Saturday 17th July 16:12
Number of nukes is a bit irrelevant. You only need one to do its job.....

Eric Mc

121,779 posts

264 months

Saturday 17th July 2010
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
Eric Mc said:
Britain has a small number of tycoons. Some are approaching obsolescence and will need to be replaced fairly soon - especially imn view of the growing threat from the east.

Not successful in the bomber role, unfortunately....

I think Barnes Wallis' method of making heavy objects bounce was much superior.

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Saturday 17th July 2010
quotequote all
hehe

Simpo Two

85,148 posts

264 months

Saturday 17th July 2010
quotequote all
bitwrx said:
Number of nukes is a bit irrelevant. You only need one to do its job.....
Well, one to deter. You couldn't wipe out Russia with just one, but they might pause at the prospect of crispy fried Moscow (assuming it wasn't shot down en-route by some secret missile we don't know about)

Engineer1

10,486 posts

208 months

Saturday 17th July 2010
quotequote all
Jonny671 said:
Eric Mc said:
As I said, 20 years is not unusual these days from setting of specifictaion to entering service.
Surely thats too long though, realistically?

Say, in 2030 imagine what new materials we'll have, new software and weapons.
Who cares, the cutting edge of weaponry and materials won't be in the field in large numbers for years, the only time stuff gets really rushed into combat is when the st hits the fan.

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 17th July 2010
quotequote all
Tango13 said:
Eric Mc said:
Because EVERY advantage is worth having. I am sure the Typhoon is optomised for a BVR engagement - but any fighter pilot worth his salt will value having an agile fighter under him as well as fast one. Ask all those chaps who fly F-16s, F-15s and MiG 29s - and ask those pilots who are gladly giving up their Tornado F3s.

Also, ask those American pilots who rode into Vietnamese skies in their missile toting, non-agile Phantoms thinking they were going to have it all their opwn way.
100% Nail on head

The USAF & USN went to war in Veitnam with the F4 Phantom convinced that the the gun was obsolete and the long range missle was king.

They were wrong.
[quote]In May 2000 the British MoD announced that Tranche-2 and 3 Eurofighter's in RAF service will not be fitted with any cannon whatsoever, while Tranche-1 cannons would not be utilised. The recommendation for this was made by the Equipment Capability Organisation (ECO) which was tasked with finding the most appropriate mix of weaponry for combat systems. The official Government line is that the capability offered by ASRAAM equipped Eurofighter's leads to the cannon becoming operationaly and economically unviable. However, the British MoD has so far spent £90M on the BK-27 while annual savings from not using it are put at a mere £2.5M (the costs of removing it are put at £32M). This casts some doubt on the economic merits of cancelling the weapon.
wtf?






Simpo Two

85,148 posts

264 months

Saturday 17th July 2010
quotequote all
Politicians, that's what.

Unfortunately they have to be in charge of the military or we'd have a dictatorship.

(mind you dictators, not having elections to worry about, can make remarkable progress in a short time!)


Edited by Simpo Two on Saturday 17th July 20:39

Eric Mc

121,779 posts

264 months

Saturday 17th July 2010
quotequote all
Dictators are just politicians with no opposition - so they're even more disastrous.

Ayahuasca

27,427 posts

278 months

Saturday 17th July 2010
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Because EVERY advantage is worth having. I am sure the Typhoon is optomised for a BVR engagement - but any fighter pilot worth his salt will value having an agile fighter under him as well as fast one. Ask all those chaps who fly F-16s, F-15s and MiG 29s - and ask those pilots who are gladly giving up their Tornado F3s.

Also, ask those American pilots who rode into Vietnamese skies in their missile toting, non-agile Phantoms thinking they were going to have it all their opwn way.
The F3 pilots don't all get Typhoons. My Bro in law went from F3 to Hawk!


Mr Dave

3,233 posts

194 months

Saturday 17th July 2010
quotequote all
Bedazzled said:
Great pic smile

That illustrates my point though, you don't need to turn on a six-pence to defend against a Russian Bear. A modern-day interceptor (like the old Lightning) would better suit our needs, huge speed combined with advanced avionics and weaponry, then you can choose your fights. The Eurofighter seems to sacrifice payload, range, firepower, etc for unnecessary agility - I'm just curious to know why they did that.
The Typhoon out performs the Lightning in every single way possible, same as Tornado and Phantom. Huge speed, ability to out manouvre almost anything out there (hugely important in wars such as Korea, Vietnam, 6 day war, Yom Kippur, Vietnam, Falklands,Iran-Iraq)also the agility is another defence against anti aircraft weapons which is useful in every war we have fought recently (Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq again and Afhganistan) so the agility is very important. With PIRATE and ASRAAM, the Typhoon has an off boresight capability unlike older fighters so pretty much anything you can see and roughly point the aircraft at is fair game, not just aircraft directly ahead of you as in older interceptors. The more agility, the more chance you have of pointing the aircraft in a direction where you can fire first than the other bloke.

Sacrificing payload? Typhoon can carry a lot of AMRAAM and Meteor for long range air to air, it can carry plenty of bombs for providing air support for our troops in theatre. It has good range , pretty much as good as the Tornado (which are all falling to bits as it happens).

The ability to turn on a six pence would be useful in Afghanistan as our enemies know how long an F-16 or Tornado takes to set up for a second attack and are provided with an oppurtunity to attack if they used a MANPAD or shooting at it/friendly troops/ run and hide. Typhoon can bring weapons to bear in a shorter time, taking away that issue.

The Eurofighter Typhoon was designed from the outset to be multi-roled. The ACA was not but that got superceeded by the FEFA of which the EPA was only part of the whole picture but air to ground was a requirement even then. The Typhoon, which is what we have in service now. Always designed to be multi-role and not just a fighter despite its name. The RAF wanted it partly to replace Jaguar which was not an air to air platform.

Typhoon is capable of looking after itself pretty well, able to intercept enemy aircraft effectively, dominate airspace, project power and provide close air support. It is very much maturing into a well rounded combat aircraft capable of fulfilling many roles. Which is enabling us not to lose too much capability despite our airforce being hacked to bits and it will remain viable in the forseeable future.

As for F-22, it has obvious benefits over the Typhoon such as low observability, a lot of thrust and thrust vectoring, but the Typhoon has a much better avionic suite (have a look at who makes most of the F-22s avionics and as a hint it aint all american) and doesnt exactly hang about so things arent as clear cut as you would expect, let alone the fact the USAF is looking into getting rid of the things already as they arent exactly going to plan.

The most detrimental thing about the Typhoon is that it is called the Eurofighter. Many in the army see it as pointless. Doubt any of them would see it as pointless if they were in the back of a herc with enemy fast air about however.