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!

  

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.

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.

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?