Eurofighter Typhoon Thread:

Typhoon fighter aircraft will receive new weapons and airborne radar
07.08.2009

Countries participating project Eurofighter, recently decided to acquire 112 fighter aircraft Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 3A for the 9 billion euro until the end of 2009, agree on the specification of the production of these aircraft, the Flight Global.

As the executive director of the consortium Eurofighter Kazolini Enzo (Enzo Casolini), discussion of the configuration of aircraft with its customers - Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK - will include the use in the construction of radar stations with active using phased array antennas, as well as guided missiles Meteor air -Air. " Producer of the latter is the company MBDA.

Kazolini also said that before the end of 2009 is planned to assess what needed to integrate new elements into the design of fighter aircraft. He also noted that the three member countries endorsed a joint study, which was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the installation at the new airborne radar aircraft, while the United Kingdom intends to carry out similar work themselves.

Recall that in 1998, the four European states have ordered in the amount of 620 fighter aircraft, taking delivery of the decision to divide into three tranches until 2017. The third of these customers were to get 236 fighter jets. However, in March of 2009 they decided to divide the tranche into two phases - 3A and 3B. The first involved the supply of 112 and the second - a further 124 vehicles. Germany recently announced that it might abandon the aircraft tranche 3B, since the country's air force is a smaller number of fighters.

Права на данный материал принадлежат Lenta.ru

http://www.migflug.com/jetflights/p-i-r-a-t-e-versus-raptor.html


In a recent exercise, it seems that the Typhoon outmanoeuvred the multi billions US F-22 Raptor. Increasing doubts about the so-called superioty of the F-22.
This is what a german pilot said :

As soon as you get to the merge … the Typhoon doesn’t necessarily have to fear the F-22

This is a direct blow against US doctrine regarding air battle. If a the Typhoon -undoubltly one of the best fighters in the world - is able to outmanoeuvre the F-22 Raptor, there would be the same for Mig, Sukhoi, and chinese-flankers. We will never know what's really happened during this exercise, nevertheless, the F-22 Raptor and the B2 are not the jokers for any new US air campaign.

So your point is evreytime x outperform y in some exercise then x is superior to y ??

And all we got is a germain pilot saying : i don't fear the F22!

  

The F-22 is not a dogfighter... it has no AIM-9X nor does it have a helmet mounted sight and would therefore be vulnerable to an early 1980s Mig-29.

The F-22 is supposed to stand back and fire from a distance where it wont be detected and then withdraw and reload.

i guess even the Luftwaffe and USAF are disagreeing with eachother about "who won". i think this might be the same article Nemrod quoted.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-german-eurofighters-impress-during-red-flag-373312/

i put my money on the Typhoon tough,

another good article about the F-22 receiving too much credit than its actually worth in a war.

http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/cdi-the-f-22-not-what-we-were-hoping-for/

GarryB wrote:The F-22 is not a dogfighter... it has no AIM-9X nor does it have a helmet mounted sight and would therefore be vulnerable to an early 1980s Mig-29.

The F-22 is supposed to stand back and fire from a distance where it wont be detected and then withdraw and reload.

You're completely right!!!!  .

Only one thing the F-22 has aim-9x.

GarryB wrote:The F-22 is not a dogfighter... it has no AIM-9X nor does it have a helmet mounted sight and would therefore be vulnerable to an early 1980s Mig-29.

The F-22 is supposed to stand back and fire from a distance where it wont be detected and then withdraw and reload.

its amazing that the designers tought on this manner. do they really expect that the F-22 only would be deployed against an enemy with ancient air defense?. or did the U.S goverment never considered it may end up one day fighting modern-day aircraft like the modernised SU-35, JAS39 Griphen or Typhoon?.

the EU Millitary industrial complex is pretty much selling their products/technology to everyone willing to pay. China receives its aircraft engines from France, Naval fire control from france, its naval ship diesel engines from Germany, etc.

Russia has several weapon contracts with EU manufacturers. most heard of is of course the two Mistral-carriers France will deliver to Russia. but also Rheinmetall, a large german weapon technology company has extensive deals with Russia and helped Russia revamp its millitary to the technological level of the West. and has no interrest in suspending its co-operation with Russia. Brasil is purchasing the Saab Gripen...against the liking of the U.S of course that perceive it all as "a threat".

enough critics and notable aircraft designers expressed concern over the F-22 and even more so about the F-35 that they will end up as breakfast for modern Russian and chinese fighters. are the Americans just in denial over its shortcommings untill one day the F-22 gets blown to scrap in the sky's?. or is this the aircraft manufacturer buying a few senators in Congress like what happened when the M-16 was "forced" upon the millitary?.

Airbornewolf wrote:

its amazing that the designers tought on this manner. do they really expect that the F-22 only would be deployed against an enemy with ancient air defense?. or did the U.S goverment never considered it may end up one day fighting modern-day aircraft like the modernised SU-35, JAS39 Griphen or Typhoon?.

the EU Millitary industrial complex is pretty much selling their products/technology to everyone willing to pay. China receives its aircraft engines from France, Naval fire control from france, its naval ship diesel engines from Germany, etc.

Russia has several weapon contracts with EU manufacturers. most heard of is of course the two Mistral-carriers France will deliver to Russia. but also Rheinmetall, a large german weapon technology company has extensive deals with Russia and helped Russia revamp its millitary to the technological level of the West. and has no interrest in suspending its co-operation with Russia. Brasil is purchasing the Saab Gripen...against the liking of the U.S of course that perceive it all as "a threat".  

enough critics and notable aircraft designers expressed concern over the F-22 and even more so about the F-35 that they will end up as breakfast for modern Russian and chinese fighters. are the Americans just in denial over its shortcommings untill one day the F-22 gets blown to scrap in the sky's?. or is this the aircraft manufacturer buying a few senators in Congress like what happened when the M-16 was "forced" upon the millitary?.

The f-22 is a aircraft to be concerned of and so is the f-35 because the ability to destroy aircraft from one hell of a distance and there powerfull radars.

The f-22 is one of the best aircraft of the world and would be a good weapon system in a war and very dangerous to be fighting in a war.

A mix of f-22 and f-35 would be very good the f-35 can shoot there missiles while the f-22 guides the missiles to there targets.

A SU-35 would have a hard time shooting down a raptor.

In a very big air war it wouldnt be weird when stealth aircraft are going to get blown to scrap every side will lose aircraft and kill aircraft.

And the F-22 losed from some aircraft but the raptor probably kills alot of aircraft too but then it isnt world news.

Flyingdutchman wrote:

Airbornewolf wrote:

its amazing that the designers tought on this manner. do they really expect that the F-22 only would be deployed against an enemy with ancient air defense?. or did the U.S goverment never considered it may end up one day fighting modern-day aircraft like the modernised SU-35, JAS39 Griphen or Typhoon?.

the EU Millitary industrial complex is pretty much selling their products/technology to everyone willing to pay. China receives its aircraft engines from France, Naval fire control from france, its naval ship diesel engines from Germany, etc.

Russia has several weapon contracts with EU manufacturers. most heard of is of course the two Mistral-carriers France will deliver to Russia. but also Rheinmetall, a large german weapon technology company has extensive deals with Russia and helped Russia revamp its millitary to the technological level of the West. and has no interrest in suspending its co-operation with Russia. Brasil is purchasing the Saab Gripen...against the liking of the U.S of course that perceive it all as "a threat".  

enough critics and notable aircraft designers expressed concern over the F-22 and even more so about the F-35 that they will end up as breakfast for modern Russian and chinese fighters. are the Americans just in denial over its shortcommings untill one day the F-22 gets blown to scrap in the sky's?. or is this the aircraft manufacturer buying a few senators in Congress like what happened when the M-16 was "forced" upon the millitary?.

The f-22 is a aircraft to be concerned of and so is the f-35 because the ability to destroy aircraft from one hell of a distance and there powerfull radars.

The f-22 is one of the best aircraft of the world and would be a good weapon system in a war and very dangerous to be fighting in a war.

A mix of f-22 and f-35 would be very good the f-35 can shoot there missiles while the f-22 guides the missiles to there targets.

A SU-35 would have a hard time shooting down a raptor.

In a very big air war it wouldnt be weird when stealth aircraft are going to get blown to scrap every side will lose aircraft and kill aircraft.

And the F-22 losed from some aircraft but the raptor probably kills alot of aircraft too but then it isnt world news.

i PM'd you a youtube U.S airforce intell briefing at the time about how the U.S rates the current "enemy" fighters like the SU-35. they fear it and for good reason. like the weaponry they gave us troops to Afghanistan its untill then you figure out how good it really is in real war.

our weapon systems do the job, but our Diemaco C7a1 jams if there is some foreign contaminants like sand or dust on the bolt. an AK-47 does not. our vehicles engines grind themselves up because of the fine dust they take in in afghanistan, ive seen T-55's still driving out there in possesion of the Afghan National Army. they do not start pretty, but they do ignite and drive around without the extensive maintenance our vehicles need.

the Russian weapon design philosophy is very different than from "our" perspective. in Russia its first task is to wage war and the conditions its going to endure. the rest comes later. in the West, its making everything as advanced as it can be but often its plagued with sensitivity to errors/jamming and equipment that just cant handle abnormal conditions.

like our dutch GILL anti tank system. it was supposed to be "the shit". we tried it out in Afghanistan against a standard shipping container. the missile could not accuire its target with its top-down attack because the surrounding terrain was just as hot as the container itself and it missed its target by 100 meters. it did not posses any secondary targeting options. its a fire and forget weapon. so...you better hope that tank you are aiming on is either an obsolete piece of crap with an humongous heat signature in the desert or you come across it in a nice, comfortable 20 degrees celsius so the missile can distinguish its target from the surroundings. just to point out the serious flaws of Western weaponry, even if this weapon supposed to come out of Isreal.

anyway, to the point. the russians made the SU-35 and its younger brother PAK-FA 50 to kill Western modern fighters. its not just their ability to fire a wide range of loadouts. their high-manouvrability, advanced electronic warfare and the quality of russian pilots makes them absolutely lethal. keep in mind Russia's design bureau's had 30 years to see Western hardware in action in all the wars NATO got involved in. i do not see Russia's fighters as a threat to europe. they are simply excercise the same right any country has to arm themselves against foreign aggression.

On paper the F-22 is an excellent plane... the 1990s showed that with high off boresight AAMs and helmet mounted sights WVR combat is lethal to both aircraft because as long as the other pilot has time to look and shoot before your missile hits him then there is a good chance that missile he fired will kill you and trading aircraft one for one means disaster for any air force.

The next generation AAM like the Morfei missile developed for the PAK FA and likely to be used on all modern Russian fighters will have an IIR seeker that seeks an image of the target rather than just hot points... it will have a full thrust vectoring engine to allow it to turn faster than any other object in the air, and it will likely have a two way datalink to allow it to lock on to a target after it has been launched. the latter feature will allow it to be launched from an internal weapons bay without needing to be poked out to view the target before it is launched.

This new missile will likely be effective against a range of enemy air targets which will likely include enemy missiles like AMRAAM.

The F-22 is expected to operate high and fast and on its own as a long range sniper picking off enemies before they even know it is there... problem is that with a decent VHF radar on the ground that F-22 is not invisible and its location can be datalinked to an Su-35, MiG-35, or PAK FA in real time. Those Russian aircraft just need a long range missile with a passive seeker like an IIR seeker fitted to Morfei... obviously Morfei will be a short range defensive weapon to shoot down any AMRAAMs the F-22 might direct at the Russian aircraft, but imagine an RVV-BD with an IIR seeker and a datalink to guide it to the location of the F-22. the IIR seeker is non emitting so the F-22 wont get lots of radar waves blasted at it like an active radar homing missile would, and also the IIR seeker could be left active during the entire flight looking for targets on the way.

Incidents with the B-2 at Farnborough show the IR stealth of US aircraft is not perfect.

To attack an F-22 in the future a MiG-35 or Su-35 can use R-77s to shoot down incoming AMRAAMs... and after the F-22 has fired 6 AMRAAMs it has its gun left to defend itself, while the Su-35 has 6 more missiles and a gun, while the MiG-35 has at least 2 more missiles and a gun.

Obviously multiple aircraft on multiple aircraft change this but the US no longer has the best of the best.

they wanted a guy with a sniper rifle to fight lots of enemies armed with submachineguns... their problem is the invention of the tank and the fact that the enemy is developing long range rifles too...

Airbornewolf wrote:
i PM'd you a youtube U.S airforce intell briefing at the time about how the U.S rates the current "enemy" fighters like the SU-35. they fear it and for good reason....

Hey friend, we are interresting too. Please, If you could post it this link.

http://rt.com/news/192128-eurofighter-hull-strength-problem/

More you have a sophisticated platform, more you meet problems.

Simple and effective. That's the way to make money, that's the way to win wars.

Hannibal Barca wrote:Simple and effective. That's the way to make money, that's the way to win wars.

U can notice the ludicrous US figure, concerning the availlability of the F-22. They pretend 69% of the fleet of 180 F-22-mwahahahahaha - are ready for combat. As I previously post about the US huge economic problem, this assertion is a mere lie. Moreover, they reduced the training of pilot to one third.

Strength of hull is quite a problem for so expensive jet as Eurofighter. One option is to reduce flight hours and lower G limit or to strengthen the construction of plane, what will increase weight and lower maneuverability and range. Without strengthening of construction life time will be far shorter, so they will sooner need replacement for Eurofighter and I doubt they could afford new fighters in next decade.

medo wrote:Strength of hull is quite a problem for so expensive jet as Eurofighter. One option is to reduce flight hours and lower G limit or to strengthen the construction of plane, what will increase weight and lower maneuverability and range. Without strengthening of construction life time will be far shorter, so they will sooner need replacement for Eurofighter and I doubt they could afford new fighters in next decade.

This article (and all others on the subject as of right now) is too vague to really tell if this is a major structural issue or not. For all I care this could just be a fault in the skin or some other non-crucial component. But, if it is structural, then...... My guess is that the problem is somehow related to the EFT's composite build, thought I could be wrong. Worst case scenario, the airframes will need to be modified or replaced etc. I doubt the modifications would add much weight, if anything the problem would be the cost.

Nemrod - I don't see why not to believe that figure... The F-22's problems have basically all been worked out, and the only thing keeping some/them grounded is budget/money issues and isn't really related to the plane itself. The training cut back is due to the same thing (money) and is happening all around the AF (not only the F-22). 

Gotta keep it simple and effective, like Barca said....

higurashihougi wrote:

Mike E wrote:Nemrod - I don't see why not to believe that figure... The F-22's problems have basically all been worked out, and the only thing keeping some/them grounded is budget/money issues and isn't really related to the plane itself. The training cut back is due to the same thing (money) and is happening all around the AF (not only the F-22). 

Gotta keep it simple and effective, like Barca said....

This is some of the problems we are expected to face when adopting an exotic and novel design. Novel means less familiar and probably expensive. A new design, although clearly superior, may not be widely adapted if the industrial/econmical infrastructure and training background are not ready yet.

That's the reason why G11, AN-94, TKB-517 are/were not widely adapted in the army.

Just like the production relationship needs to be compatible with the conditions of the production forces... if not, it will supress the growth of production forces, or the production forces will destroy it and establish a new relationship.

Who says Marxism-Lenninism is obsolete ?

Which doesn't explain a thing...... I'd be willing to bet that 69% of the F-22 fleet it combat-ready, and I'll believe that until someone proves me wrong.

higurashihougi wrote:

Mike E wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:

Mike E wrote:Nemrod - I don't see why not to believe that figure... The F-22's problems have basically all been worked out, and the only thing keeping some/them grounded is budget/money issues and isn't really related to the plane itself. The training cut back is due to the same thing (money) and is happening all around the AF (not only the F-22). 

Gotta keep it simple and effective, like Barca said....

This is some of the problems we are expected to face when adopting an exotic and novel design. Novel means less familiar and probably expensive. A new design, although clearly superior, may not be widely adapted if the industrial/econmical infrastructure and training background are not ready yet.

That's the reason why G11, AN-94, TKB-517 are/were not widely adapted in the army.

Just like the production relationship needs to be compatible with the conditions of the production forces... if not, it will supress the growth of production forces, or the production forces will destroy it and establish a new relationship.

Who says Marxism-Lenninism is obsolete ?

Which doesn't explain a thing...... I'd be willing to bet that 69% of the F-22 fleet it combat-ready, and I'll believe that until someone proves me wrong.

But I do not say that F-22 is bad. You misunderstand my points.

In fact I would prefer to have a small number of upgraded F-22 and large number of upgraded F-teen, that is much better than the bullshit named F-35.

Never said you did... The F-22 is very expensive, hard to maintain, is complicated etc, but that doesn't mean that the fleet isn't ready...

As would I... The F-22 is far superior to the F-35, and some of the teens are still great jets.

Mike E wrote:
Nemrod - I don't see why not to believe that figure... The F-22's problems have basically all been worked out, and the only thing keeping some/them grounded is budget/money issues and isn't really related to the plane itself. The training cut back is due to the same thing (money) and is happening all around the AF (not only the F-22).

I wouldn't say that Iam a strong specialst in this area, nevertheless, I studied during long years mechanical engineering in university. What I say about the F-22, regarding its engines they are beside the SU-35, the state of the art in mechanical design, mechanical thrust. It is a real technological prowess. Furthermore, regarding electronic area, it is the most advanced fighter jet in the world, indeed, the F-22 embedded a kind of super computer, a kind of cray calculator. The F-22 is an awacs, elint, and fighter-bomber, beside its mechanical thrust vectoring engine.
As I said, more your machine is complex, more you must meet many other problems. During the world war II, you could have several tens of thousands B-24, B-29, P-47, P-51 flying against several thousands Messerschimdt. During the Korea war, you could see several thousands F-86, against several hundreds Mig-15. During the Vietnam war few thousands supersonic F-105, F-4, LTV A-7 Corsair II, F-100, against few hundreds of Migs. During the gulf war I, several hundreds US F-15, F-14, F-16, F-18, against few hundreds of Sukhoi and Migs.
What does it mean ? The complexity implies more maintenance, more problems of availlaibilty, then the number of the fleet is mechanically reduced.

I've given the example of the SU-30 MKI, and its availlabilty about 40%, the euro fighter Typhoon has the same problem, because of the complexity. If we admit the postulate that the F-22 is the most complex machine nowadays, and regarding the others and their problems, if you think that  US overcame the problems of availlabilty, hence, you admit that americans are supermen. Nevertheless, the reality is not virtual. Moreover, knowing the fact that US used to lie, especially regarding this strategic area, their figure about 70% of availlibilty is simply ludicrous.
Moreover, another problem surged these recent years, America lacked money, they could not feed their war machine like before. The problem is becoming a nightmare.
For that reason the availlabilty of the F-22's fleet, is in the best cases -very optimistic vision- around 30%, but undoubtly, rather around 20-25%. In the next, you will see this problem becoming more and more critical. It won't be impossible that the fleet of the F-22 will be reduced to several dozens, because US could not afford to maintain a such power. Because America used to live above its means, and now it is simply impossible.  Like Russia experimented this hard situation in the 90's after the Soviet Union collapse.

Mike E wrote:
... The F-22 is far superior to the F-35, and some of the teens are still great jets.

You could not compare these two aircrafts, these are two differents aircrafts. I've posted a link recently explaining that the F-35 could not go to combat without F-22 Raptor. As you cannot compare the Mig-29 and SU-27, these two aircrafts are complementary, as are the F-22 and the F-35.

To those who still think that America would say truth, this is the true report of Spiegel.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundeswehr-unter-von-der-leyen-marode-ausruestung-bei-luftwaffe-a-987940.html
I won't mention british army who has far more hardwares than Germany. Nevertheless, you can notice that only 8 on 109 Typhoons are availlable.
Germany has budget around 50 billions $, UK aroud 57 billions $. The Spiegel report shows also after combat in Afghanistan, just few  CH-53 are availlable, it is no use to insist about the Tornado.

Well, seeing these figures, about US, with their aircrafts carriers, air fighters fleets, US basis, America still pretend that 69% of its F-22 are availlable, in the gloomy time of depression, and military budget cuts. In my view, if indeed, America is doing all its possible to maintain its statut, and for that reason, the availlabilty of the F-22's fleet, would be a little bit greater than other countries. Around, in the best cases, 30%. But in my opinion the figure should be around 20%. The truth, around 40 F-22 could be availlable, not more.
If you see about indian availlabilty of SU-30 MKI' fleet, 40% -if it is true- is rather a good rate.

Berlin - Die Bundesregierung hat am Montag leicht gereizt und einsilbig auf einen SPIEGEL-Bericht über gravierende Ausrüstungsmängel bei der Bundeswehr reagiert. Ein Sprecher von Verteidigungsministerin Ursula von der Leyen (CDU) erklärte, der Ausrüstungszustand der Bundeswehr sei eine interne Angelegenheit, die er nicht in der Öffentlichkeit diskutiere. Ausdrücklich dementieren wollte er die dramatischen Zahlen zur Bereitschaft bei der Luftwaffe jedoch nicht. Der Sprecher sagte lediglich, die Truppe sei für "den Normalfall" gut ausgerüstet - ohne zu definieren, was als normal gilt.

Der SPIEGEL berichtet in seiner neuen Ausgabe unter Berufung auf einen vertraulichen Bericht der Luftwaffe über schwere Ausstattungsmängel bei der Bundeswehr, die die außenpolitischen Pläne für ein stärkeres, internationales Engagement der Bundeswehr infrage stellen. Demnach sind etliche Kampfjets vom Typ "Eurofighter", Transportflugzeuge und -hubschrauber derzeit nicht startklar, weil Ersatzteile fehlen und sich Reparaturen verzögern. Folgende Mängel sind in dem Papier unter anderem aufgelistet:

   Nur acht von 109 "Eurofighter"-Kampfjets sind voll einsatzbereit.
   Von den 67 CH-53-Transporthubschraubern, die unter anderem in Afghanistan im Einsatz sind, können derzeit nur sieben abheben.
   Auch bei den Hubschraubern vom Typ NH90 gibt es Ausfälle: Gerade einmal fünf von 33 sollen einsatzbereit sein.
   Von 56 Transall-Transportflugzeugen des Typs C-160, die derzeit unter anderem Hilfsgüter in den Nordirak bringen, sind lediglich 21 voll flugtüchtig.

Das Verteidigungsministerium kommentierte keines der Defizite. Nur in einem Punkt wurde von der Leyens Sprecher an diesem Montag konkret: So sei die Abstellung von sechs "Eurofighter"-Jets im Zuge der verstärkten Nato-Patrouillen über dem Baltikum von dem Notstand bei der Luftwaffe nicht gefährdet.

Bis zum Ende der Woche sollen vier Flugzeuge zum Nato-Flugplatz Ämari in Estland verlegt werden, 160 Soldaten werden vor Ort stationiert. Zwei weitere "Eurofighter" sollen in Deutschland in Bereitschaft bleiben. Der deutsche Einsatz im Baltikum soll laut Bundeswehr, die in Estland das dänische Militär ablöst, vier Monate dauern.

Yes, the Bundeswehr is in bad shape but they portray it even worse than it already is to create the needs for immidiate and immense budget increase for direct rearming because NATO (USA) wants Germany to be the stupid spearhead for the meatgrinder, nothing else that is.

Werewolf wrote:Yes, the Bundeswehr is in bad shape but they portray it even worse than it already is to create the needs for immidiate and immense budget increase for direct rearming because NATO (USA) wants Germany to be the stupid spearhead for the meatgrinder, nothing else that is.

What I mean, the so-called availlabilty of US F-22 fleet of 69% is a mere joke. Are american supermen to do this ?

Here is another link explaining what are the reason of this german low rate of availlabilty of Typhoon.
http://www.opex360.com/2014/08/27/lhebdomadaire-der-spiegel-decrit-aviation-militaire-allemande-dans-etat-lamentable/

nemrod wrote:
What I mean, the so-called availlabilty of US F-22 fleet of 69% is a mere joke. Are american supermen to do this ?

69%? Probably not a bad figure - what's the serviceability rate of the MiG-31 in the RuAF?