Jump to content

Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon variants

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85.87.124.31 (talk) at 20:22, 2 December 2023 (→Badly needs updating; much relates back to 2006.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Page Name: Note this is resolved

I would suggest that this page should be named Eurofighter Typhoon F2, using the customer's name as part of the aircraft name is not a standard nomenclature - do we have RAF Spitfire somewhere ! - any comments from watchers MilborneOne 17:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need this page? : Note this is resolved

I agree with the above but would go further, do we need a seperate page for each nations jets? Should this be a candidate for merging?Mumby 20:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created it for UK specific information which will grow considerably over the next few years. As for a seperate page for each nations jets; I know from experience with Panavia Tornado that with this being en.wikipedia.org, there will be copius amounts written about UK versions and next to nothing about German and Italian (and Spanish) versions. Though I've tried to redress that imbalance on the Tornado variants page. Mark83 21:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you think about having a Eurofighter Typhoon Variants page analagous to the Panavia Tornado variants page? That reminds me, I meant to make some changes to the Tornado pages: TIRRS has now been retired so there are no longer strictly GR4 Sqns and GR4A Sqns, both types of airframe are circulated between all squadrons. I have seen a GR4A in 31 Sqn colours for example. I hope to get round to that soon. Mumby 21:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would make sense. I created this article when there was still "RAF Tornado GR4" and related articles. An objection was raised to so many sub pages. I think Eurofighter Typhoon variants would probably be a better place for this info. After all F2 is not going to be the only designation used. About the GR4/GR4A issue - is there still a GR4A variant? Or is the Tornado's recce role now purely based on RAPTOR? Mark83 22:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky question. There is still a variant in the sense that you will still Tornados with the IR windows under the cockpit and the linescan fairing just forward of the under-fuselage weapons pylons. However, from what I know they are no longer used and it is indeed RAPTOR which provides recce sensor capacity. As I said, as with many types (e.g. BAE Hawk), airframes are circulated between squadrons to keep airframe hours relatively even across the fleet. This means that you will see 'GR4A's in markings other than 2 Sqn and 13 Sqn markings. So, in that sense there is no longer a dedicated recce Tornado. I had some references for all this so I will try to dig them out and make some updates, unless you beat me to it! Cheerio, Mumby 22:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find any references I'd love to see them - not because I doubt you, just because I'd like to read more about it. So if GR4s are being shared/circulated - doesn't that make an ex-GR4A (if you see what I mean) a slightly less capable plane than a pure GR4? i.e. the GR4A has no cannon and quite a bit of wasted space in the nose (redundant systems).Mark83 13:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the title of the article could be better. Haow about "Eurofighter Typhoon in RAF service". Wouldn't it be "Eurofighter Typhoon F2" or "Eurofighter Typhoon II" in official terms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GraemeLeggett (talk • contribs)
As I said above, I created the article when RAF Tornado GR4 etc. existed. (now a redirect). Just thinking this was the standard nomenclature, I followed. The RAF call it Typhoon F2, like Tornado F3 etc. The RAF doesn't use manufacturer names as far as I know. OK, so we are agreed that it has to change, but to what:

I would say Eurofighter Typhoon variants is the best solution. As for the Tornado question, I will try to answer that, in part at least, on the Panavia Tornado variants page. Mumby 19:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move completed. I also did a major re-write prior to the move to make it a non-UK specific article. I've provided a link from the main article and moved the DA/IPA info on to this page. Mark83 20:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! I look forward to expanding this page. Mumby 20:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly, utterly, useless

I have removed the reference to Major James Loden's (3 Para) remark that either the RAF, or something they were doing in Afghanistan, was 'utterly, utterly useless'. Mahor Loden was reported as saying [1]

"... Harrier pilot 'couldn't identify the target', fired two phosphorous rockets that just missed our own compound so that we thought they were incoming RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades], and then strafed our perimeter, missing the enemy by 200 metres,"

RAF Harriers in theatre are not equipped with guns (see ADEN 25 here: ADEN cannon) (unfortunatley) so it is not clear exactly what is being referred to here. Whatever he meant, it is not completely relevant here. Mumby 20:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an ongoing discussion concerning deleting or merging a separate Navalised Eurofighter article. Would anybody who is interested visit the Navalised Eurofighter page and contribute to the AfD discussion.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 13:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that common sense has prevailed.Petebutt (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Retrofit 2 the same as Drop 2?

http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsbae-drop-2-upgrade-raf-tranche-1-typhoon

Is this the same thing as the "Retrofit 2" mentioned in this article? Hcobb (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV

If the Indian Navy pursues a catapult launch carrier, the Typhoon is completely uncompetitive against tender rivals (e.g. Rafale and Super Hornet) since meeting "... catapult requirements would add too much weight to the aircraft, blunt performance and add substantially to modification costs".[32]

No citation provided. Link also dead. This comment should be removed or evidenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.47.11 (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eurofighter Typhoon variants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eurofighter EK (ECR)

It seems Germany has given the green light for the Eurofighter ECR development, with IOC for 2028. Perhaps it should be moved from Proposed Versions into the main body? Also apparently its no longer called Eurofighter ECR, now its Eurofighter EK, stemming from the German "Eurofighter Elektronischer Kampf":

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2022-10-21/hensoldt-and-rafael-team-luftwaffe-electronic-warfare-pod

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/luftwaffe-submits-eurofighter-ek-study-ahead-of-jammer-selection-by-end-of-year

2A00:23C7:C797:FC01:40ED:4931:794E:D117 (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they have evolved the concept a bit, dropped some proposed features of the ECR while adding others and its not really set in stone, they are soliciting EW equipment suppliers to make their pitches. As it stands at the moment it looks like they are pursuing a modular approach where the aircraft can move between a limited range stand off wide-area jamming, suppressing enemy air defence (with HARM) or Stand-in jammers (protecting wingmates) by swapping between pods. WatcherZero (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Badly needs updating; much relates back to 2006.

I don't feel sufficiently informed to do this but it so clearly so out of date as not to be a useful summary of publically available sources. 85.87.124.31 (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon_variants&oldid=1188004970"