PDA

View Full Version : OT : Nagging Eurofighter



Hanglands
05-08-2007, 03:45 PM
Hi,

Listen to the warning given by the aircraft at about 3:46 and the pilots response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APiiKsH0dR4

Mildly amusing.

Regards.

Airmail109
05-08-2007, 05:46 PM
LOL!

Still, i think its an overrated POS.

It really, really should have been designed with stealth in mind.

JSF will be able to do most things the Eurofighter can, and better in some areas.

VW-IceFire
05-08-2007, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
LOL!

Still, i think its an overrated POS.

It really, really should have been designed with stealth in mind.

JSF will be able to do most things the Eurofighter can, and better in some areas.
Not sure about that.

The JSF has its own set of problems. The F-22 is now regarded to be top down the best aircraft with which to kill other aircraft ever made. Combination of stealth, datalink, radar, speed, maneuverability, and weapons gives it this ability (its really no one thing). But the F-35 doesn't have the same level of stealth, has a single engine, and has limited internal payload capacity. If a F-35 wants to carry as much stuff as a Raptor or a Typhoon then it has to sacrifice its forward aspect stealth for payload.

All of these next gen fighters have reduced RCS profiles so they are relatively stealthy compared to their predecessors. The F-22 and F-35 are just much better at this but they aren't perfect. The biggest problem with stealth, and some experts say stealth in its present form is a waste, is that next gen radar systems will be one better than current generation stealth and to make your plane even stealthier compromises it aerodynamically somewhere and requires a redesign anyways. And then there are the new Russian electrooptical and long range IR systems which apparently negate some of those advantages too.

Complex issue...no right answer. But I'd caution immediately dismissing the Typhoon and propping up the Lightning II.

The big question is...can these fighters defeat the Su-30 (which are becoming quite available) variants that the Indians and Chinese have. Especially if those Su-30's manage to land a blow on a friendly AWAC's with one of those ridiculously long ranged AWAC killers.

LStarosta
05-08-2007, 06:17 PM
AWACS is not plural. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BillyTheKid_22
05-08-2007, 06:35 PM
LoL!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Airmail109
05-08-2007, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
LOL!

Still, i think its an overrated POS.

It really, really should have been designed with stealth in mind.

JSF will be able to do most things the Eurofighter can, and better in some areas.
Not sure about that.

The JSF has its own set of problems. The F-22 is now regarded to be top down the best aircraft with which to kill other aircraft ever made. Combination of stealth, datalink, radar, speed, maneuverability, and weapons gives it this ability (its really no one thing). But the F-35 doesn't have the same level of stealth, has a single engine, and has limited internal payload capacity. If a F-35 wants to carry as much stuff as a Raptor or a Typhoon then it has to sacrifice its forward aspect stealth for payload.

All of these next gen fighters have reduced RCS profiles so they are relatively stealthy compared to their predecessors. The F-22 and F-35 are just much better at this but they aren't perfect. The biggest problem with stealth, and some experts say stealth in its present form is a waste, is that next gen radar systems will be one better than current generation stealth and to make your plane even stealthier compromises it aerodynamically somewhere and requires a redesign anyways. And then there are the new Russian electrooptical and long range IR systems which apparently negate some of those advantages too.

Complex issue...no right answer. But I'd caution immediately dismissing the Typhoon and propping up the Lightning II.

The big question is...can these fighters defeat the Su-30 (which are becoming quite available) variants that the Indians and Chinese have. Especially if those Su-30's manage to land a blow on a friendly AWAC's with one of those ridiculously long ranged AWAC killers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lasers are going to make Fighter Aircraft obsolete anyway

That new thing theyve stuck on the 747 for shooting down missiles.....would be quite easy to point it at a jet.

Aircraft are going to go the way of submarines, I do not see the point of all this maneuverability ****. They should be as small, as quiet, and as stealthy as possible once they've miniaturizes the laser technology. There will be no dogfighting, or aerial combat. It again, will be like submarine warfare....the person that detects the opponent first....wins....blasted by a laser, you cant run....out fly...out maneuver or out anything when it comes to a laser beam.

Nimits
05-08-2007, 07:24 PM
LOL; the initial link was good.

For my money, the Eurofighter Typhoon is the best 4th generation aircraft in the world . . .

It is probably the best dogfighter (along with the more modern Flankers). But good luck gettting a dogfight with an F-22 or F-35 . . .



Lasers are going to make Fighter Aircraft obsolete anyway

That new thing theyve stuck on the 747 for shooting down missiles.....would be quite easy to point it at a jet.

Aircraft are going to go the way of submarines, I do not see the point of all this maneuverability ****. They should be as small, as quiet, and as stealthy as possible once they've miniaturizes the laser technology. There will be no dogfighting, or aerial combat. It again, will be like submarine warfare....the person that detects the opponent first....wins....blasted by a laser, you cant run....out fly...out maneuver or out anything when it comes to a laser beam.

I keep saying, if the B-52 stays in service long enough, its going to be the new air superiority fighter

EiZ0N
05-08-2007, 08:40 PM
I think a combination of F22s and EFs would be the best set of planes for an air-force to have http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Airmail109
05-08-2007, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by EiZ0N:
I think a combination of F22s and EFs would be the best set of planes for an air-force to have http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

No, Laser armed B52s

Huxley_S
05-08-2007, 08:52 PM
It really, really should have been designed with stealth in mind.

Why? The kind of enemies these planes are going to be going up against in the near future are lucky if they have a guy in a watch-tower, never mind radar or anti-aircraft weapons.

As for dogfighting... against who exactly?

At the moment they are retrofitting the Typhoon to be a ground attack fighter, so that it might actually have something to do for the next 20 years.

Airmail109
05-08-2007, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It really, really should have been designed with stealth in mind.

Why? The kind of enemies these planes are going to be going up against in the near future are lucky if they have a guy in a watch-tower, never mind radar or anti-aircraft weapons.

As for dogfighting... against who exactly?

At the moment they are retrofitting the Typhoon to be a ground attack fighter, so that it might actually have something to do for the next 20 years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

whats the point of even building such a high tech plane for air to air when you can shoot down crappy migs with an F-16

Needs to be suitable for future wars such as one with china

LStarosta
05-08-2007, 09:01 PM
What do we need?

A squadron of Spitfires.

Lodovik
05-09-2007, 01:07 AM
Cool Video, that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

That reminds me, a while after the unification of Germany in the early 90s', I read an article about NATO pilots who got to try out some MIG-29s' from East Germany (or maybe it was Poland, don't remember). The pilots agreed that it was a nice bird, but they didn't like the way it nagged at them for pulling high G manouvers etc.
According to the article, MIG-29 came fitted with a system called "Natasha" which would advice the pilot on different flight details on synthesized female voice.
The voice was female because psych tests had shown that male pilots would respond better to flight data input from a woman.
I've been looking for samples from the Natasha system ever since then. These days I'd use them as ring tones on my mobile phone. Yes, I'm that geeky http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Badsight-
05-09-2007, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
LOL!

Still, i think its an overrated POS.

It really, really should have been designed with stealth in mind. it was

you really should read up more about the Eurofighters systems more

especially the PIRATE system , the EF is the most amazing fighter outside of the Raptor - & can be debated to do some things better than the Raptor

Whirlin_merlin
05-09-2007, 02:46 AM
A mate of mine in the RAF recons that the Typhoon really is all that but that the cost has made the RAF almost bankrupt itself and has caused a serious drop in capabilities in other areas.

tigertalon
05-09-2007, 03:11 AM
whats the point of even building such a high tech plane for air to air when you can shoot down crappy migs with an F-16

Needs to be suitable for future wars such as one with china

Nah, war between developed countries is extremely unlikely simply because of all the economic dependancies of each other. If I hit you I hit myself at the same time even more.

Another note, regarding "war" with China:
China is an owner of strategic thermonuclear weapons (among USA, GB, France and Russia). Believe me, there will be no outright war with physical destruction between any owners of these.

Bremspropeller
05-09-2007, 03:11 AM
What do we need?

A squadron of Spitfires.


Nuts? Don't you wanna win anymore?

Better get sum F-82s. TWO P-51s at the price of one!!11

ploughman
05-09-2007, 03:28 AM
"Not now luv."

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Nic plane. The PIRATE thingy's supposed to be the dog's danglies.

The-Pizza-Man
05-09-2007, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Not sure about that.

The JSF has its own set of problems. The F-22 is now regarded to be top down the best aircraft with which to kill other aircraft ever made. Combination of stealth, datalink, radar, speed, maneuverability, and weapons gives it this ability (its really no one thing). But the F-35 doesn't have the same level of stealth, has a single engine, and has limited internal payload capacity. If a F-35 wants to carry as much stuff as a Raptor or a Typhoon then it has to sacrifice its forward aspect stealth for payload.


F-35 has a greater internal payload than the F-22. It's weapons bays are significantly larger. In fact it can carry twice the internal payload of the F-22.

Only the V/STOL variant has a reduced internal payload, however, it is still able to carry as many bombs of the same size as the F-22.

Bremspropeller
05-09-2007, 06:29 AM
But the F-35 is gay.
That evens out all its plusses.

ploughman
05-09-2007, 06:32 AM
Least it's got a cool name.

Raptor =



http://www.liberace.com/images/postcard6.jpg

Bremspropeller
05-09-2007, 07:05 AM
Touché.

Viper2005_
05-09-2007, 07:27 AM
The competition makes better aircraft for airshows (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIdvSQB2dP4)

Hanglands
05-09-2007, 12:59 PM
I remember laughing at Jeremy Clarksons comments on Eurofighter in the Sunday Times.

Sunday 8 April 2001.

Is it a plane? No, its a flying vegetable.

"So, the Bubbles have cancelled their order for 60 Eurofighter jets, saying they need the money to pay for the Olympic Games. Well, thanks Mr Popolopolus.

Thats just great.

Eurofighter could, and should have been a shining example of pan-European cooperation. One in the eye for Uncle Sam. The greatest ground attack 'mud-mover' the world has ever seen. But instead it will stand for ever more as a beacon showing the world that a federal superstate can never work on this side of the Atlantic.

the idea for such a plane was first hatched back in the early 1970s when Britain realised it would soon need a land based fighter bomber to replace both the Jaguar and the Harrier. We couldnt design such a machine by ourselves because we were on the three day week at the time, so we went to see the French and the Germans.

The French said they already had a fighter, the Mirage, and therefore needed only a bomber which could be used on aircraft carriers. The Germans said they didnt need a bomber since, for once, they werent planning on bombing anyone. They needed a fighter. And they absolutely were not interested in this aircraft carrier business because they didnt have any.

Obviously the whole thing was never going to work, so in the spirit of what was to come the three countries did the sensible thing and signed the deal and went back home to come up with some preliminery studies.

Now to understand the hoplessness of the position I would like you to imagine that they were not designing a warplane but a vegetable. So Britain came up with the potato, France designed a stick of celery, and Germany did a lobster thermidor. The project was dead.

But not for long. From nowhere the Italians and Spanish decided they wanted a piece of the action, and flushed with the idea of these extra complications, a contract was drawn up.

It was ever so straight forward. the amount of work, and therefore jobs, given to each country would depend on how many of the fighters they would buy. That was fair. But not to the French it wasnt. They wanted one plane, 50% of all the work, and total control. When they were told to get lost, they did. Taking Spain with them.

So now it was Britain, Germany, and Italy, and it stayed that way for about twelve seconds, when the Spanish fell out with the French and asked to come back in again. So fifteen years after the project was first mooted and just eighteen months before the RAF needed its planes, the project was at last up and running.

Then disaster. The Berlin Wall fell over and all of a sudden European governments lost the will to spend trillions on a plane that would have nobody to fight. The airforces too realised that a highly manoeverable Mach-2 dogfighting jet would have no place in the new world order. So it was agreed by everyone to keep going.

Germany and Briatain were going to take 250 Eurofighters each, which is why each had 33% of the worload. But in the recession of 1992 our givernment wondered if this was a trfle excessive. The RAF dropped its order to 232 planes and the Luftwaffe to just 140. But the German government insisted it kept its share of the work. When everyone else kicked up a fuss, it threatened to pull out.
Fearful that a pack of cards was about to come tumbling down, the Italians andSpanish went to lunch and the British got tough. Immediately, we gave in.

However the delay had thrown up a new problem : the name. All along it had been called Eurofighter 2000, but by 1994 it was obvious that it could not be operational before 2001 at the earliest. So it became the Typhoon which conjures up pictures of devastation and death.

Well dont get your hopes up. You see Tony Blair recently decided that the planes missiles should be British eather than American. Good call, but the British weaponry wont be available until eight years after the jet goes into service. So what are the pilots supposed to do in the meantime, make rude gestures?

That said though, I have talked to various authoritative sources over the past year and it is widely though the the Eurofighter will become the worlds best fighter-bomber. It is desperately easy to fly and at £50 million a pop its also extremely cheap. To put that into perspective, each new USAF F-22 Raptor will cost £115 million.

So Eurofighter is something Europe can be justfiably proud. Should the Russians decide to invade, we have exactly the right sort of firepower to hold them back.

However, for dealing with the sundry world leaders in far-flung parts of the globe, what you really need are aircraft carriers. Britain has just ordered two and there are talks of modifying Eurofighter to become precisely what the French wanted 30 years ago. But presumably it was too much of an effort. So what have we done? Well, in the perfect spirit of Euopean cooperation, we have teamed up with the Americans to build something called the Joint Strike Fighter. Thank you Europe, and goodnight."

Huxley_S
05-09-2007, 01:23 PM
Kudos to Clarkson!

I absolutely agree... the Typhoon is an amazing bit of kit that is totally redundant even before it becomes operational.

The French had the foresight to see the need for a next-gen aircraft carrier based bomber and should have just gone about it on their own.

Bremspropeller
05-09-2007, 02:36 PM
I absolutely agree... the Typhoon is an amazing bit of kit that is totally redundant even before it becomes operational.

The French had the foresight to see the need for a next-gen aircraft carrier based bomber and should have just gone about it on their own.


BS.

Divine-Wind
05-09-2007, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Nimits:
I keep saying, if the B-52 stays in service long enough, its going to be the new air superiority fighter
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

HuninMunin
05-09-2007, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
Kudos to Clarkson!

I absolutely agree... the Typhoon is an amazing bit of kit that is totally redundant even before it becomes operational.

The French had the foresight to see the need for a next-gen aircraft carrier based bomber and should have just gone about it on their own.

You do realise that the Rafale blows beyond recognition in the AtG role?

Huxley_S
05-09-2007, 03:50 PM
The perfect weapon for today's challenges would be a carrier based A-10 with vertical take off and landing capability.

The Typhoon I have no doubt, once it undergoes some significant changes, will have a role to play. Just not the kind it was designed for.

HuninMunin
05-09-2007, 03:56 PM
I don't understand of wich changes you are speaking; the air to ground abilitys were always planned to be delivered from the 2nd tranche onwards.
If you take a look at the weaponry it will be certified to carry once the time has come, it will be the best multyrole warplane in the western hemisphere.

Huxley_S
05-09-2007, 04:05 PM
I don't understand of wich changes you are speaking; the air to ground abilitys were always planned to be delivered from the 2nd tranche onwards.
If you take a look at the weaponry it will be certified to carry once the time has come, it will be the best multyrole warplane in the western hemisphere.

As far as I'm aware, the desired ground attack systems for the Typhoon are still in development. I might be wrong about that... any dates for them to come online?

csThor
05-09-2007, 09:46 PM
Hux - To criticize the first EF batch for not being "the real deal" is like criticizing the very first F-15A batch for not being a F-15C or E http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VW-IceFire
05-09-2007, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Huxley_S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It really, really should have been designed with stealth in mind.

Why? The kind of enemies these planes are going to be going up against in the near future are lucky if they have a guy in a watch-tower, never mind radar or anti-aircraft weapons.

As for dogfighting... against who exactly?

At the moment they are retrofitting the Typhoon to be a ground attack fighter, so that it might actually have something to do for the next 20 years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

whats the point of even building such a high tech plane for air to air when you can shoot down crappy migs with an F-16

Needs to be suitable for future wars such as one with china </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
MiGs yes but the Su-30MKI and MKK are a fair bit more capable than the F-16 and F-15.

Badsight-
05-10-2007, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
MiGs yes but the Su-30MKI and MKK are a fair bit more capable than the F-16 and F-15.
lmao

like its possible to compare 2007 abilitys off against each other

MAW is all about pilot training anyways

Bremspropeller
05-10-2007, 06:35 AM
Hux - To criticize the first EF batch for not being "the real deal" is like criticizing the very first F-15A batch for not being a F-15C or E

Despite not haveing "a pound for air-to-ground", the Alpha/ Bravo models could carry and deliver bombs.
The Izzies eventually made use of that, bombing PLO-headquarters in Tunis.
The USAF and JASDF, hovever, de-wired it's bombing capabilities since they weren't needed or necessary (JASDF being defensive only).
I'm not quite sure about the Chalie/ Delta Eagles, but I guess they weren't wired to carry bombs - right from the production-line.

ploughman
05-10-2007, 06:51 AM
The RAF Typhoon's being fitted with an interim capability to mitigate the recent retirement of Jaguars based on Paveway and Lantern III. Not sure if it's a 'today' capability or a 'very soon' capability.

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F8CFFCF2-A82C-4413-A271-51B34B88B986/0/Page20Typhoon.jpg

Bremspropeller
05-10-2007, 07:01 AM
It's Paveway III and LANTIRN http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ploughman
05-10-2007, 07:09 AM
Silly me. Anyway, point is it's got bombs on it.

Bewolf
05-10-2007, 07:55 AM
Still, the best argument for the EF is lacking

http://treff.bundeswehr.de/C1256FC400444998/vwContentByKey/W26JGF4L449INFODE/$FILE/eurofighter.jpg

It's a beauty =)

And with this baby..
http://www.bwb.org/02DB022000000001/CurrentBaseLink/W26K8ATF940INFODE/$FILE/image_large.jpg

The IRIS T, It will be a "very" tough adversery in close combat.

LStarosta
05-10-2007, 08:03 AM
The Typhoon looks like an F-16 with Down syndrome.

EiZ0N
05-10-2007, 08:20 AM
Nonsense, it's great looking.

Bewolf
05-10-2007, 08:22 AM
pssst. don't feed the trolls. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Huxley_S
05-10-2007, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
What do we need?

A squadron of Spitfires.

I really think there is a role for a WWII style fighter in the ME.

They are cheap to procure and run, therefore you can have more of them in the sky at once. They are less intrusive to the civilian population than having jets screaming overhead, rattling windows, waking people up in the middle of the night and generally pissing people off and scaring the bejeeezus out of them in equal measure. Their visible presence in numbers, on patrol over cities and roads would help to reassure civilians whilst acting as a visible deterrent to insurgents and terrorists and a more evasive target for RPGs than a helicopter.

They would be able to carry cheaper, old skool, manually aimed rockets, bombs, machine guns and cannon. Flying at low altitude they would spot for snipers and insurgents planting roadside bombs.

The Typhoon is a beautiful aircraft, but it's like you've got to hammer in a nail and you are given a top of the range electric screwdriver. So you have to hammer in the nail with the handle of the electric screwdriver. The nail gets hammered in a bit wonky, and you could have achieved the same result with a brick. Oh for the right tools for the job!

mynameisroland
05-10-2007, 12:41 PM
I hear ya Huxley, its about time the old Hurricane IIC was dusted off to show Johnny Foreigner whats for.

EiZ0N
05-10-2007, 08:26 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ake109
05-11-2007, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
What do we need?

A squadron of Spitfires.

I really think there is a role for a WWII style fighter in the ME.
! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I imagine that if a modern fleet were to be attacked by a sufficiently large horde of WW2 dive bombers, they wouldn't have enough SAMs to shoot down even half of them?

The-Pizza-Man
05-11-2007, 05:54 AM
And they wouldn't have enough SAMs to shoot down a sufficiently large horde of butterflys either.

But they'd have enough to shoot down a lot. They could quad pack ESSM in the VLS, so 360 SAMs for an Arleigh Burke, plus 2 CIWS, plus the 5 inch gun. A sufficiently large horde would have to be very large indeed.