EuroFighter Tycoon
Discussion
Reply to Jonny.
First I heard about UK being a potential customer. But nonetheless very good news if it goes through.
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.
First I heard about UK being a potential customer. But nonetheless very good news if it goes through.
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
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.
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.
digimeistter said:
aeropilot said:
XG332 said:
Are we not getting the F-35 when if its finished?
EFA http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10648250
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........
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 headAlso, 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 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
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.
Number of nukes is a bit irrelevant. You only need one to do its job.....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
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....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)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.
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 headAlso, 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 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.
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! 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.
Bedazzled said:
Great pic
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.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.
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.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff