WT Forums

Leaving behind all the Ya Boo Sucks that normally goes on for anything that flys and can't trace it's roots back to the good old US of A,

Is the new Typhoon actually any good?

I've just read that it had to be re-designed halfway through so it could attack ground targets as its original mission (to take on the Ruskis in the air) isn't so important anymore.

Bearing in mind that our press is a touch biased towards it, what you you lot think?

"A .44 magnum beats 4 Aces everytime..."

Well it's certainly expensive enough.

" You got me all wrong Mudd...i don't like anyone. <img src=newicons/saevil.gif border=0 align=middle>"
<img src="http://worldaffairsboard.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=862&stc=1" border=0>

It doesnt suck..... It blows, its the greatest fighter the 80's neverhad.

Where at a technology Gap right now, We cant manufacturer fast enough to meet the technological advances, The Truth is that all these designs are fielded well past their relative purpose.

I look at not the design of the typhoon, but as to what capability it is expected to meet. The truth is, it is not going to work well with the European govts. Too many antiquated and proprietary gear is fielded in each individual nation. It doesnt fit in well with any joint operational doctrine. About the only thing usefull is going to be the IFF and individual efforts. Team base wise, the european govts do not havea fully integrated battle system.

So like i said, It has nice gadgets fro a plane that is competitive in the past tense. Their is not enough invetment into more important things NATO needs. This is what happens when you cannot budget a complete system and are shopping bargain basement deals. Their is a next to no Mil Spec European standard.

Sure its a prett plane and does nice aerobatics, It cant prosecute and integrate into a real time Campaign.

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

I don't know nearly enough about air based systems (my bag is IT), but when I think I heard the reporter saying it was first conceived 23 years ago..!

I nearly choked on my Museli...

This fits exactly with what you say.

Is a twenty year programme typical?

I kinda feel sorry for anybody trying to come up with concepts for the military.

One, You have no idea if the scenario you are designing for will still be around

Two, You can bet your life if anybody had a crystal ball and could see the tech available in twenty years time, the concept would be radically different.

"Why is it so big?"
"That's to fit the computer according to the specs we got back in 1983"
"Ah, well it's 2005 and this matchbox that I'm holding is the computer"
"&*%&* $^^$***"...

"A .44 magnum beats 4 Aces everytime..."

I remember reading about it at the local library while do a paper on harriers back back in fourth grade. Almost a decade and a half later, they're still not in operational service.


<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I don't know nearly enough about air based systems (my bag is IT), but when I think I heard the reporter saying it was first conceived 23 years ago..!

I nearly choked on my Museli...

This fits exactly with what you say.

Is a twenty year programme typical?

I kinda feel sorry for anybody trying to come up with concepts for the military.

One, You have no idea if the scenario you are designing for will still be around

Two, You can bet your life if anybody had a crystal ball and could see the tech available in twenty years time, the concept would be radically different.

"Why is it so big?"
"That's to fit the computer according to the specs we got back in 1983"
"Ah, well it's 2005 and this matchbox that I'm holding is the computer"
"&*%&* $^^$***"...

"A .44 magnum beats 4 Aces everytime..."
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

"The worst football halftime show is still better than a soccer game." - Ron "Tater Salad" White.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Is a twenty year programme typical?

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


No. Twenty five is more like it.

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> It doesnt suck..... It blows, its the greatest fighter the 80's neverhad.

Where at a technology Gap right now, We cant manufacturer fast enough to meet the technological advances, The Truth is that all these designs are fielded well past their relative purpose.

I look at not the design of the typhoon, but as to what capability it is expected to meet. The truth is, it is not going to work well with the European govts. Too many antiquated and proprietary gear is fielded in each individual nation. It doesnt fit in well with any joint operational doctrine. About the only thing usefull is going to be the IFF and individual efforts. Team base wise, the european govts do not havea fully integrated battle system.

So like i said, It has nice gadgets fro a plane that is competitive in the past tense. Their is not enough invetment into more important things NATO needs. This is what happens when you cannot budget a complete system and are shopping bargain basement deals. Their is a next to no Mil Spec European standard.

Sure its a prett plane and does nice aerobatics, It cant prosecute and integrate into a real time Campaign.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I guess the same be said about the Frog's Rafale.

What does the Euro Fighter offer, that the F-20 Tigershark didn't?

I really do not see how it is an improvement over the USAF's or USN's current arsenal of front line tactical aircraft...

Airframe Wise chad, it offers what the 70's fighters offered to the world. Design Engineering and study sylabus. Basically its a flying Lab.

Look atwhat the F117 and F22 has brought in Technology transfer share with our other manufacturers, and it is certainly a study model of foriegn developments looking from the outside in.

All they have attempted to do with the Europhyter is Clone a Delta Wing F16. their is nothing really cutting edge in the design.

What the Eurofighter is doing for the europeans is giving them a Engineering lab to design fighters. They do not have the wealth or competitive industry that is in our domain. Our critical technology is non transferable, even to allied nations. This means If you live in Switzerland, and you want to Build a jet, you are on your own.

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

Eurofighter offers what most Euro aircraft projects offer, jobs and $$$. Same with the A-400M, no real reason to build it rather than buy C-17s but they ARE building it anyway.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.