Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

Orders

It is stated that there are "three separate contracts (named "tranches")". This is wrong. Before defining tranche as contract, the editor should have checked a dictionary, if he or she does not know what a tranche is. Please rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Do it yerself, ya lazy get. We're not taking your orders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.189.20 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Tranche is what the contract batches are named. Tranche 3 was split into A and B parts. Check the sources provided in the article to verify this. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Why revert a ref that shows that because nobody is buying the EFing aircraft, production is shutting down? Hcobb (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

For one, your source doesn't say that. It in no way says that "nobody is buying" the Eurofighter. Your addition to the article was worded as a "collapse in orders." This is quite simply NOT supported in your reference, not at all. Your reference states that orders have "declined" and that production is "slowing" as a result. There is no production shutdown. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.lep.co.uk/news/battle_to_support_staff_facing_bae_jobs_axe_1_3809695 On Monday, company has confirmed government’s in the four partner nations of the Typhoon’s jet-building consortium, made up of the UK, Germany, Spain and Italy, are to buy aircraft over a longer period of time, slowing production.

Can we at least add that part in? Hcobb (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Appearance at RIAT 2011

BAES Chief Test Pilot (Combat Aircraft) Mark Bowman was presented with the RIAT Steedman Display Sword for Best Flying Demonstration by a UK participant. His display was a first - minus 2.0 G manoeuvres in a heavy configuration carrying four AMRAAM and two ASRAAM, air to air missiles, four 1000lb Paveway II laser guided bombs and two drop tanks! It included sharp banking immediately after unstick, an inverted pass, velocity vector rolls (not possible in former generation fighters) and high thrust-to-weight ratio reheated climbs and turns to demonstrate combat agility. The 8 minute routine was mostly flown around the 350 to 400kt mark and involved +5.5 to –2.0 G and up to 20 degree alpha. See [1]. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft

Even though I am not in favour of a "my aircraft is better than your aircraft" diatribe that may surely result, I would like to open the discussion as to the elements that would constitute: "Comparable". I would suggest: era represented, technology employed, role or mission, performance and ?? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC).

• Clearly Rafale, F-22, Su-27, Su-35, F/A-18E, and J-20 would be comparable with little to no dispute - modern, medium-large, twin-engined, multi-role fighters. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the F-22, Su-27, and possibly the J-20 could be disputed. The Su-27 is more of a "last generation" aircraft, though modernized versions such as the Su-35 are more Eurofighter class. The F-22 and J-20 are designs with stealth in mind. While the Eurofighter has some affordable stealthy features, it is not in the same class as the F-22 in that regard. Certainly the Rafale is comparable, as are the Superhornet and Su-35. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Definitely Rafale as it was developed in competition with the EAP/Eurofighter, in relation to the others it will just create arguments with everyone who thinks that Eurofighter is a rival to the JSF/F-22 and those who think it is just a rival to the Superhornet and F-16 Block 50 Mztourist (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

In the market-place "comparable" means only one thing - an alternative on the same shopping list. So we should really be looking only at those aircraft that have been appraised alongside Typhoon by those nations thinking of buying one. And comparable includes "comparable price ticket". This would work fine, except that the Rafale, the plane that's closest to Typhoon, isn't on anyone's shopping list. And the F-22 is too expensive for anyone else to buy. But Gripen should certainly be there. 109.154.158.81 (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Rafale keeps getting evaluated, though, associated with Eurofighter (so far Brazil's the only place it's survived past the first round, though as it were). As for F-22, there's three countries, possibly four, right off the top of my head (Australia, Israel, Japan, South Korea) who would line up, hat in hand, if the U.S. Congress decided to permit export of the thing (which is the problem, not cost - note JSF now costs nearly as much as a Raptor, but I'm digressing). It needs to be remembered that Eurofighter is a late-1980s programme(!) that suffered delay after delay after delay...so late 1980s/early 1990s types should be mentioned. If we go by "purchase alternatives" then the list is Rafale, Gripen, F/A-18E, F-15E, F-16 Block 40/Block 50, MiG-29, and Su-30 (which fits rather better than the -27 and -35)... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Four replies - four opinions, which is what is wrong with the comparable aircraft section. Why not just leave it out and use categories instead. Its what they were created for and its already in Category:Delta-wing aircraft, Category:Canard aircraft, Category:International fighter aircraft 1990–1999 and Category:Relaxed-stability aircraft. It may need some more cats created like Category:International fighter aircraft still in use and from the reply above Category:Aircraft in the Indian MRCA competition etc. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Errrr no. "In use", "modern", "current", etc. are horribly bad category topics and consensus at CfD is that they are to be eliminated whenever possible. Now, List of modern fighter aircraft might be a worthy project along those lines though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you disagreeing with the suggestion or the wording Category:International fighter aircraft still in use which was just a suggestion and can be anything we want. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Fix for 4.5 in the lead

How about something like "with planned upgrades to 4.5th generation capabilities" to avoid giving the erroneous impression that it is currently up to par with the Super Hornet. Hcobb (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Obsered. — Woe90i 21:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't currently have AESA radar and so can't yet be called 4.5 generation. Mztourist (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Should remove any mention of "generations" it has no meaning to the general public or properly defined it is just something for the fighter fans to argue about. MilborneOne (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I hate this "4th generation, 4.5th generation, 4+++th generation" speil - it's all nonsense - what's competing with one another for contracts is what's competing with each other for contracts, regardless of magic decimal places, self-appoint scales of meanless comparison. This numbering-muck got old with Intel processors ten years ago, and that's real old to me: I wish it were completely buried and done away with. Abitrarily whacking out these numbers means.... nothing. Kyteto (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Or aircraft manufactures use to promote their own aircraft - agree should be deleted. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

We should use whatever our generation our reliable sources use. Our personal feelings regarding the definitions are irrelevant, and it isn't our place to add or remove an aircraft based on AESA. It's 4.5 if the reliable sources say it is, it is 4 if the reliable sources say it is, it isn't listed as anything if the reliable sources do not say it is. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The source we have for this is the manuf's site, which claims 5th generation. They never claim 4.5th so the current inclusion is not based on any sort of official claim or technical ruling. Hcobb (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted it back to the previous version by Fnlayson which doesn't mention 4.5 Gen at all. This issue has been debated at length on previous talk pages with no clear agreement on where Eurofighter fits as Gen 4, 4.5 or 5. Its probably worth pointing out that in international procurement competitions, which are perhaps the best indicator of how Eurofighter rates against other aircraft, it has lost to the F-15E twice (Singapore and South Korea), the F-16 Block 50/52 (Oman) and the F-35(Japan) and it appears that rather than ordering more Eurofighters the Saudis have decided to buy 80 more F-15Es. Mztourist (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder to everyone, this is not a forum for general discussion of Eurofighter Typhoon.Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

53 oldest RAF Typhoons to be scrapped, fleet cap at 107?!

Despite the widely believed rumour out there, according to a recent Hansard (October 2011), this is not the case. "The Department has no plans to cap the number of Typhoon aircraft in service at 107 between 2015 and 2020." interesting. Will make appropriate change to article.Talk^Woe90i 18:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Specification

Hi, the service ceiling is only 16765m according to the source (service ceiling=Dienstgipfelhöhe) the absolute ceiling is 19810m (absolute ceiling=max. Flughöhe). I didn't edit it myself because I'm not sure how to enter the data, so both ceilings are shown.

LERX

Maybe we could add Leading Edge Root Extensions under the Upgrades section. I believe these have been trialled on German Typhoons in 2007. Here are some pics: [4] [5] 87.194.223.183 (talk) 22:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)