Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

F-22 consensus

I am protesting in the strongest terms the dictating of what can and cannot be in this article by a user who does not even bother to join the community. the WP:AIR Page Content guidelines give a clear definition of what is considered "comparable", but this is continually ignored. The definition: Comparable aircraft: are those of similar role, era, and capability to this one. This will always be somewhat subjective, of course, but try to keep this as tight as possible. Again, some aircraft will be one-of-a-kind and this line will be inappropriate. It does not say "equal" or "identical", but "similar".

Similarities:

1. SIngle-seater
2. Twin-engine
3. Supercruise capability
4. Stealth features
5. Mach 2+ max speeds
6. Development began in the 1980s
7. Entered production in the early-mid 2000s
8. Primary role of Air Superiority, with secondary air-to-ground capability
9. Modern weapons
10. Both the top of the line fighters for their contries

Differences:

1. Internal weapons for F-22
2. F-22 has greater designed stealth abilites, tho these are untested in actual combat
3. Higher supercruise speed for F-22
4. Less emphasis on air-to-ground role for F-22, tho this may change with retirement of F-117.

In addition, most of the differences are of degree, not substance. I genuinely do not see how they cannot be considered "comparable" by WP:AIR's definition of the term.

Getting this page protected obviously did not help the matter, nor did simply waiting the user out. I DO NOT accept that a consensus was reached previously, just that the user was unable to edit the article, and the issue died down. How can we compromise? Put in "F-2"? It's either in or out - there is no apparent middle ground. I don't know if IPs are eligible for Arbitration or not, but that seems to be the only solution left here, as no one seems inclined to enforce 3RR on IPs. - BillCJ 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A consensus was reached, in fact. I believe the consensus was to keep F-22 as a similar aircraft. Simply, no one felt like warring the IP just yet... CyrilleDunant 16:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, he certainly isn't interpreting the consensus that way! And do you mean "warring" or "warning" (just not sure in context). - BillCJ 16:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I do mean warring. Warnings are for admins to give :) Users can only undo... CyrilleDunant 17:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Users can give warnings if needed. But it takes admins to block them. -Fnlayson 17:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I just wasn't sure of your meaning, and wanted to make sure. - BillCJ 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible compromise

Will this work?

• F-22 Raptor

If having listed is a POV, and not having it listed is POV, then having it in, but struck out, must be NPOV! I don't see any other way to do it! - BillCJ 17:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've decided to be bold and unilaterally declare a moratorium on changes to the Similar aircraft list until there's some clear consensus. I know "voting is evil", yet straw polls are intended to ferret out consensus (as opposed to defining it). Rather than the disruptive debate over on which side the consensus may rest, I've set up a straw poll below to see if we can put an end to this contentious and disruptive (and just plain trivial) debate and concomitant edit war. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What kind of stealth features does the Typhoon have? --Eurocopter tigre 18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll regarding whether the F-22 should be considered a "similar aircraft" to the Typhoon

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

• The F-22 SHOULD BE included in the list of similar aircraft.
  • Per WP:AIR/PC guidelines defining "comparable" and "similar" - BillCJ 18:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Leaving WIkipedia under this name; may return as IP vandal so I can get away with bad behavior, bullying, and wikistalking, which seems to be more fun than following the rules here - and you can get away with it too! - BillCJ 04:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. John Smith's 18:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Close enough to be considered "similar" per BillCJ's comparison list above. -Fnlayson 18:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Same as BillCJ CyrilleDunant 18:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed - as per BillCJ. MilborneOne 18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed - as per BillCJ. Mark83 19:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed -~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eurocopter tigre (talk • contribs) 19:29, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
  • Agreed. Close enough to make meaningful comparisons. --John 20:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed. There are degrees to similarity. On the Su-30 discussion someone made the statement that the Su-30 is comparable to USA's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, but the Super Hornets isn't comparable to Russian Su-30. I think this most certainly applies to this Typhoon/Raptor argument. (Bobbo9000 02:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Bobbo9000)

• The F-22 SHOULD NOT BE included in the list of similar aircraft.
  • Should not be included. The role of these two aircraft is fundamentally different, as is their performance. They are from different generations in the development of fighter aircraft (see my remarks, below). Sunray 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Should NOT Be included. This is not about similarities or differences, this is about bullying(see my remarks, below). 68.245.237.240 23:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Should not be included.
  • Should not be included128.241.41.132 11:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It should not be included. I would quote directly from the Eurofighter entry in wiki which is sourced. General Jumper who flew both Raptor and EF said the following "but is still difficult to compare to the F/A-22 Raptor. They are different kinds of airplanes to start with; it's like asking us to compare a NASCAR car with a Formula 1 car."70.18.2.250
  • The Typhoon is not a stealth aircraft. It is not in the same generation of fighter. (it would be appreciated if everyone included their reason for the vote, the voes really doesn't matter, the reason does -- we need to come to a reasonable resolution, not use the result of a vote based on feelings or emotion) Nicholas SL Smith 08:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The Typhoon was not designed from the outset to be a stealth aircraft.

Royzee (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Please keep it civil, respectful, assuming of good faith, and to the point.

The debate on comparability of the Typhoon and F-22 suggests the need to define "comparable." Part of the difficulty in this debate is that there are exactly two definitions of the word:

1 : capable of or suitable for comparison

2 : SIMILAR, LIKE <fabrics of comparable quality> Merriam-Webster Online

It would seem that the intent of the section "Comparable aircraft" is to list aircraft that are similar. You wouldn't expect to see P-51 or T-33 in this section because they are too dissimilar. On the other hand, it seems obvious that the F-18 should be in the list because there are strong similarities between it and the Typhoon (both are strike fighters with STOL capabilities and similar performance). The F-22. on the other hand is a fifth generation air superiority fighter with stealth capabilities. These are fundamentally different roles. Consider what the article says about the comparison between the Typhoon and the F-22:

In March 2005, United States Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper, then the only person to have flown both the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Raptor, talked to Air Force Print News about these two aircraft. He said that "the Eurofighter is both agile and sophisticated, but is still difficult to compare to the F/A-22 Raptor. They are different kinds of airplanes to start with; it's like asking us to compare a NASCAR car with a Formula 1 car. They are both exciting in different ways, but they are designed for different levels of performance".

I think that John Jumper is in a position to judge and he says that the Typhoon and the F-22 are very different. Sunray 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Askari Mark agrees with you, i.e. not a 5th generation - however in terms of generation he made an excellent point on this talk page (now archived above):Mark83 21:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"I don’t say this out of any desire to disparage the Typhoon – it’s a superb airplane – but general usage deems it to be the most advanced 4th-generation fighter (in that small category of elite, top-of-the-art 4th-generation designs referred to as “Generation 4.5”). It is widely reported to be the most advanced aircraft extant, second only to the F-22, and possibly outperforming the latter in some areas. We ought to be able to just write a fine article on the Typhoon's own merits. What "generation" an aircraft is will never win a dogfight." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark83 (talk • contribs) 21:11, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Yes, they are each the most recent generation of their type. I am arguing that their roles are different. At almost three times the weight of the Typhoon, STOL capability would be inconceivable for the F-22. Likewise, stealth capability makes the F-22 a very different aircraft, IMO. Sunray 22:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, according to the specs, the MTOW for the Typhoon is 51,809 lb. I wasn't aware that the MTOW for the F-22 is 150,00 lb! In addition, I doubt either the Typhoon of Hornet qualify for the NATO definition of STOL - they may be able to use shorter fields than the average fighter, but they STOL aircraft to my knowledge. The Typhoon is desinged for more of a multi-role capability than the Raptor, but they both still perfom air-to-air and air-to ground missions. Some have argued that the missile fit of the Typhoon makes it even better in the BVR mode than the Raptor. Finally, the Typhoon does have some stealth features. Again, most of the differences here are of degree; the similarities far outweigh the real differences. - BillCJ 23:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The MTOW for the F-22 is only 70% greater than the Typhoon. It is the empty weight that is three times as great. Given that all modern fighters carry out air-to-air and air-to-ground missions, things like the Typhoon's much lower weight and multi-role capability are significant. For example, the Typhoon can be used for close air support, which you would never use the F-22 for. The F-22 excels at things like deep strike, the ability to do ISR deep in enemy territory, destruction of AWACs, jamming and info attack, etc. The cost per aircraft is currently about five times that of the Typhoon. Sunray 00:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Try comparing weights in the same units. EF's empty weight is 11,000 kg (24,250 lb). The F-22's is 14,379 kg (31,700 lb). The empty Raptor is 30% heavier, not 3 times. -Fnlayson 01:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I transposed kg and lbs. However, even one third heavier is a huge difference. But in your haste to correct me on the exact weight difference, you miss the point. The role of the two aircraft is fundamentally different. Sunray 01:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Uh yea, that 3 times thing seriously distracted me.. -Fnlayson 01:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we probably agree we shouldn't put the Globemaster III on that list ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sunray (talk • contribs) 01:34, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Take a moment and look at the user changes log for the 2 individuals the edit war. The first editor is an "IP", new to the community and trying in good faith to add to the article. He is guilty of standing his ground when his edits are reverted. The second editor has been around for a while. He has the ability to create positive input and has some real expertise in the field. This second editor however has a long track record of:

• • condesending if not outright nasty comments when reverting the work of others.
  • actively conspiring with other editors and admins to have those he disagrees with blocked or banned, without first attempting to resolve issues in a civil manner.
  • assumes ownership of articles and repeatedly deletes edits by others that infringe on "his" domain.

To me, it is clear. To those with open minds, please run the logs, look at the "positive comments" he has to others that are attempting to improve the project but cross his path. To those that are in his club, I have no doubt I will be attacked, or more likely edited out. To all, please step back, look at the big picture, and do the right thing.68.245.237.240 23:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your're not fooling anyone, bub. - BillCJ 23:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment 1: Please note the instructions under the title "Discussion". If personal attacks continue, I will feel obliged to redact them as unconstructive. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment 2: It is courteous to sign your posts (with 4 tildes) to clarify who is writing what, so that others can coherently follow the debate. Likewise, please avoid interspersing comments in the midst of another editor's post. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment 3: This issue has also erupted (in spades) in 4th generation jet fighter. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

68.245.237.240, please take it down a notch. You've only made two comments on this talk page, as far as I can see from your sig, and in neither of them do you actually discuss the merits of your argument, you just give opinion, and then attack other users. You claim to be "new"...ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and tell you that when you make an edit, and it gets reverted, our consensus policy says you are not supposed to add it right back it...that just leads to edit wars. You are supposed to take it to the talk page, make a proposal and get input. Now you're no longer a new editor in this regard, as you've been told. Secondly, "standing your ground" as a newbie is a foolish idea...if you're genuinely interested in contributing here, learn our ways. Be willing to bend and compromise. Make sure your edits conform to our policies and guidelines, and when a more experienced, hardworking editor edits what you've added, don't go get all offended. He's not doing that because he's trying to bully you, nor is this some kind of exclusive club. There are several editors here who are very hard-working contributors to the Aircraft project, and it wouldn't be the extensive collection of information that it is today without them. So, until you get up to speed in your wiki-experience, consider throttling back a bit, be a little more open to suggestion. Lastly, I'll be watching the page today, and if I see yet another flood of contentious or improper or unsourced edits from IPs, I will s-protect it for a while 'til everything calms down. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a word: I agree that it makes sense to differentiate between 4th and 5th generation aircraft when the ability of stealth emerged and influenced design decisions. I agree also that it is therefore correct to label the Raptor as 5th generation aircraft and the Typhoon as 4.5th generation aircraft to point out the air superiority and technological advance compared to 4th generation fighters but attaching much less importance on stealth design.

But ranking a fighter in another generation does say nothing about its outcome in the competition with others fighters. It is the design decision in the neverending attempt to find the best compromise of avionics, performance, speed, load, stealthiness, price etc. which will finally have the last word in combat !

When the carrier was invented, it was clear that it had no chance against a battleship. But battleships were so helpless against dive bombers and torpedo planes that their sea superiority was futile. The German Tiger was in contrast (fully operational) definitely better than the T-34/76, but the Tiger's chassis, its mechanical fragility and price was no match against the superior numbers of the T-34 with a good, easy and robust design.

As the discussion mostly concentrates on the differences between Typhoon and Raptor I would like to ask the opponents of "Typhoon comparable with Raptor": Is the MiG-15 comparable with the F-86 ? The MiG-15 has better performance abilities: wing loading, thrust ratio and climb rate and a heavy punch (23 and 37 mm). The F-86 has better armor, its tail gate and its radar range-sight together with more and lighter guns. The designers obviously designed different aircrafts (as the pilot of both Typhoon and Raptor said: It is like NASCAR vs Formula One). If the MiG-15 and the F-86 *is* not comparable, they shouldn't be mentioned as comparable together. If they are comparable, tell me the difference between Typhoon/Raptor and MiG-15/F-86.

What I really would like to know is how the fighters would compare in a show fight. 136.172.253.189 00:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am the user changing the AC types. None of the reasons above hold water. In fact the F-18E/F is of a newer design than the EF. The F-18E/F is pretty much a clean sheet design developed in the 90-95 timeframe. This is newer than the EF which is basically a 80s design that has finally overcome teething problems and is entering production. The F-18 designation was merely a way to get around congress' reluctance to fund three new fighters.

This brings me to the second point. The EF is not a game changer like the F-22. In fact most of the advanced features like LPI radar will not even be fielded until at least 2012. All of the AC I mentioned in various blocks have the same if not better electronics and fire control. EFs claim to LO and Super cruise are marginal at best. All AC mentioned have supersonic dash capability in military power as does the EF. The EF merely goes a bit faster. It is not however true super cruise where the speed difference, the length of time able to do it and the wide altitude band where it can do it makes it tactically significant like the Raptor's capability. This is pure marketing hype on the part of the EF consortium.

Lastly as for AC compared. There is no comparison between EF and Raptor. Do some research that does not involve BAE. Consider the true known capabilites and that becomes clear. DERA is misleading. It is old, funded by an interested party and does not take into account many of the advanced weapons and sensors flying on the other AC today.

I would also suggest that this has all been gone over in the past in the archived comments and the "consensus" then was that the Typhoon and Raptor are not comparable. So the question becomes is Wiki like a Banana Republic where we keep voting until we get the "consensus" we want or is Wiki about facts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.84.181.81 (talk)

Discussion is moot, it appears that BillCJ no longer contests this subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.241.41.132 (talk • contribs)

You don't have any authority to arbitarily "end" discussion. People are free to say whatever they want. Mark83 20:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Please let's get rid of the comparable aircraft section. Way too much time is being spent "discussing" it. It's way too subjective anyway. For example this whole debate is about the F-22. But why is the Gripen listed as comparable? Not much short of half the MTOW of the Typhoon, one engine (itself less powerful than just one EJ200), almost half the range and considerably lower ceiling. etc. etc. Similar holes can be picked in almost any other "comparison". About the only aircraft that really belongs in such a list is the Rafale - similar performance, developed concurrently (almost), similar config. Mark83 20:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea Mark83 I would support it, it is only a guide for readers to have other aircraft to compare against, most would not notice it missing. I suspect if any consensus on what should be on the list is ever agreed it would not last for long. Remove it and lets get on with producing a better encyclopedia. MilborneOne 20:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is fine with me. Comparisons will probably be added to the text by folks. But that will be easier to police. Make them provide a reference as we should. Removing field from template may be an option as well. -Fnlayson 21:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with this. Maybe leaving the Rafale as the only comparable aircraft should be ok, but it is better now without that section. --Eurocopter tigre 21:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that was simple in the end!! Yeah, I personally think the Rafale should be referred to as a comparable aircraft - but then maybe that's well established already and could well just open the flood gates again? Sure we could agree here to JUST list the Rafale, but we would be reverting additions for ever more. Mark83 22:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Please let's get rid of the comparable aircraft section."

- and now it has just been moved to the "performance section" instead - 90% of this is USAF statements comparing the F-22 with the Typhoon. --Financialmodel (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

1. The F-22 quote was in the article well before the comparable aircraft section was removed.
2. It's an encyclopedic quote from the first (and as far as I know only) man to have flown both aircraft. Maybe it doesn't belong under "performance" but it belongs somewhere in the article.Mark83 (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

- Unless you want to start a new "comparison section" under the tittle "performance", it dont belong there Mark83....and the quote you used it a lot of different quotes put into one quote also, the USAF source you refer to dont have that quote you had put together.--Financialmodel (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please get your facts straight - I didn't put any quote together. Mark83 (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

International Air Power Review section removed

The following was removed by anon. with the edit summary "Removed bullshit signed your Friendly Neighnorhood Bullshit Remover". The edit summary language used is unhelpful, however the section is extremely dubious. No mention has been made of this "incident" in Flight International, AWST et. al. Mark83 13:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Later in 2005, when on deployment to the USA on OEU trials work - two RAF Eurofighter Typhoons flew against the USAF's F-22s in an exercise at NAS China Lake, California. Typhoon got radar lock against the F-22s at long range and then proceeded to dominate the WVR fight. The USAF canceled the next day's exercise.

It is dubious. but on the other hand, I don't have access to International Air Power Review, I can only verify that the vol. 20 has a special on the eurofighter. So I believe that the section with the needs verification tag stay. CyrilleDunant 15:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The citation is dubious and this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. For starters, sources should be linked to someone who would know firdt hand about the event. For instance "Commander such and such of the 117th squadron states ........." The RAF states...... Your source has none of that. Is not coroborated in any other reputable source such as AV Week, and deals with a subject that is highly open to debate such as if it occurred, what where the circumstances that they occurred. I will give you one such hint, they usually sqwack on their transponders so the FAA doesn't route a commercial jet their way. Reports of exercises should be taken with a grain of salt, but if you insist I will add a few with proper notation so you can see how it's done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.3.196 (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Try these citations. Note people who where there are quoted. Note corroboration. In early 2006, after an exercise involving just eight F-22s in Nevada in Nov. 2005, Lieutenant Colonel Jim Hecker, commander of the 27th Fighter Squadron (FS) at Langley AFB, Virginia, commented "We killed 33 F-15Cs and didn't suffer a single loss. They didn't see us at all."

In June 2006 during Exercise Northern Edge (Alaska's largest joint military training exercise), the F-22A achieved a 144-to-zero kill-to-loss ratio against F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s simulating MiG-29 'Fulcrums', Su-30 'Flankers', and other current front line Russian aircraft, which outnumbered the F-22A 5 to 1 at times. The small F-22 force of 12 aircraft generated 49% of the total kills for the exercise, and operated with an unprecedented reliability rate of 97%.

This is an article on the Typhoon, not the Raptor - how the Raptor compared versus other planes is not relevant. I think the material should be reinserted (establishing where the report came from) if someone can dig up a copy of this. But I did see it reported elsewhere online, so it isn't totally bogus. John Smith's 21:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Read what he is saying. Of course it's not about the Raptor however the citations from the Raptor article illustrate what a good believable source is. The observations are corroborated and they are first hand accounts from quotable sources. IOW, names are named. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.225.146 (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

- "International Air Power" is an air force magazine in paperversion, and vol. 20 does say the Typhoon beat the F-22. Anyone interested in info about the Typhoon should be permitted to read about this, or at least be given the source on where to read the full info, but instead it seems F-22 fans are allowed to censor this information in this article, just beacuse USAF didnt officially confirm the F-22 lost to the Typhoon. --Financialmodel 21:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The info is basically useless becasue it gives no other info on the "contest", such as the conditions of the aircraft, or even the relative skills of the pilots. The story as quoted is certainly not neutral, and should be taken with a grain of salt. - BillCJ 22:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The USAF and lockeed martin will probably support this view, as most Americans (what are you), but to censor the source just because you dont like it or you dont have a 5 star US general saying the Typhoon beat the F-22 is biased. Say what was stated, and that the event is not officially confirmed by USAF, but that a few other sources like BBC have mentioned the event briefly. This trail-result is important information, and just because you didnt watch it live in telly dosent mean you should censor all statements about the event. "internatinal AIR POWER REVIEW" is a respected airfoce magazine hold by several airforces.--Financialmodel 12:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It was not LM that made those claims. What are you some euroweanie who is led by the nose who would not know the difference between fact and rumor? It has nothing to do with Americans and everything to do with facts. It included quotes from people who know including an Australian air force official as well as a British exchange pilot. The incidents cited are quoted and corroborated from reputable sources who would know what they are talking about and where there to witness what was being claimed. IPAR is a commercial publication. It claimed an event that has never been corraborated with no sources. They could have just as easily claimed that the martians have landed in the desert. Sorry boob it has nothing to do with the telly and everything to do with facts.12.164.252.102 14:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

BillCJ said: "The info is basically useless becasue it gives no other info on the "contest", such as the conditions of the aircraft, or even the relative skills of the pilots." - useless because no conditions of the aircraft? When the F-22 article claims the F-22 shot down God knows how many F-15 with no loss, are you given any info about the conditions of the aircraft here? And "the relative skills of the pilots", who are you kidding, what do you want? Did you see a list on the relative skills of the pilots from that story of the f-22 beat XXX f-15 in the F-22 article? This aint a computergame with highscores. Perhaps I should go delete all such claims in the F-22 article based on your criteria here?--Financialmodel 12:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

See above. The claims in the F-22 article have been corroborated and attributed to named sources.12.164.252.102 14:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There are two issues here. To my understanding anon user "12.164.252.102" is of the opinion that International Air Power Review is NOT a reliable source. BillCJ is of the opinion that the report from International Air Power Review is not useful because we do have only the basic information (more context, details needed). IF International Air Power Review is a relaible source, and a reliable source does not need to state the suppliers of its info (cf The Washington Post and Deep Throat to be credible, then the info could be included but only if it tells us something. I personally think, in the absence of anything else, its worth stating that the Air Power Review did say its performce was better thna expected and add the caveat that the flying conditions were not specified. GraemeLeggett 16:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper where opinion is often confused with fact. I would also point out that this claim really does not stand up under scrutiny. There is not much out there aside from the one un-verified, unattributable claim from a publication that publishes infrequently and on no particular schedule. In short it fails the smell test. Perhaps Janes or Aviation Week would be a better source for something like this. In fact the article clearly fails the threshold of inclusion according to wiki, read WP:ATTR. Look under Exceptional Claims Require Exceptional Sources. The first two bullets sums up the problem with including it at all.12.164.252.102 22:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

--Financialmodel 17:03, 19 September 2007- start: This non-user from USA saying International Air Power Review is NOT a reliable source must be specific for which reason this is. I will bet you that even your country's airforce subscribe to International Air Power Review, just because (what is probably) a US raptor fan dont like the story out there, its simply to easy just to name the source as un-reliable, this is simply not true. I do challenge you to contact your national airforce and check if their library dont subscripe to this source. As for BillCJ i have seen him on the f-22 article that is a very biased article about the F-22 and more sounds like a fan-club wrote it than anything else. His reason here for not including the info as a source of reference is completly ridiculous, BillCJ said: "The info is basically useless becasue it gives no other info on the "contest", such as the conditions of the aircraft, or even the relative skills of the pilots." -listen to it, he dont want the info out there on what is probably one of the most debated topics of all, because "the relative skills of the pilots" is unknown, again i challenge him to find this from any source provided on the F-22 test's vs. other US fighers, this is what is included in the F-22 artile tat BillCJ supervise:

In early 2006, after an exercise involving just eight F-22s in Nevada in Nov. 2005, Lieutenant Colonel Jim Hecker, commander of the 27th Fighter Squadron (FS) at Langley AFB, Virginia, commented "We killed 33 F-15Cs and didn't suffer a single loss. They didn't see us at all."[33]"In June 2006 during Exercise Northern Edge (Alaska's largest joint military training exercise), the F-22A achieved a 144-to-zero kill-to-loss ratio against F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s simulating MiG-29 'Fulcrums', Su-30 'Flankers', and other current front line Russian aircraft, which outnumbered the F-22A 5 to 1 at times.[21][34] The small F-22 force of 12 aircraft generated 49% of the total kills for the exercise, and operated with an unprecedented reliability rate of 97%.[30]"

- now BillCJ where is "the relative skills of the pilots" shown here? What is the conditions of these aircrafts? Why havent you deleted this from your F-22 article? My guess is that you are one of the persons behind the clear bias of the F-22 article and the fact that you refuse to even mention an incident between the Typhoon and the F-22 (in both articles) dosent seem reasonable. This incident is desciped by both International Air Power Review and BBC world among others and backed up by the fact that Eurofighter was sceduled to be at that location from the official site. When you add in the pictures of the F-22 and Typhoon together from the reported location also, i simply fail to see a reason for the censorship of the test-results between the Typhoon and the F-22, at least it should be said that these sources report the Typhoon have flown highly succesfull "missions" against the f-22--Financialmodel 17:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It ain't censorship if it's only a rumor.

• I've been trying to learn more about the IAPR report and have written a long report of my findings to date on the F-22 Talk page. Basically, I have found no independent verification for any aspect of the IAPR story. Since everything regarding the rumored Typhoon/F-22 engagement in the single paragraph in that publication is unattributed, there appears to be nothing to it in line with Wikipedia's WP:RS guidance to support its inclusion in either article unless and until some independent information can be found in suitable reliable source. At best, the IAPR article is a "tertiary source" for an unsubstantiated rumor. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok I am the IP who added the content - and caused the discussion. Honestly I find it disturbing that the IAPR as a source can deliberately be left out with reasons that don't hold up against other sources allowed. Also leaving out the comparison section is a way to treat a patient... surgery successfull... patient dead. The comparison section was the most interesting one - leaving it out takes a major element out. ALSO why not LEAVING the report in - UNTIL it is proven to be wrong - and if it is then take it out. Instead it seems to me that there is a clear intent of eliminating that encounter. Anyone know how to use the tracking changes feature here on wikipedia - which recently exposed companies behind the edits. I wouldn't be surprised if the people deliberately keeping all information that's somewhat negative for the F22 - would be linked to some interest groups. Oh and feel free to track my ip - I am in the US by no ways biased in any way. I am an enthusiast who loves reading comparisons. It's a shame that wikipedia allows this to happen. The arguments given for the removal are simply not worthy a Wikipedia editor - I'd have expected a more logical approach. Then one more thing: One has to look at the context here. When entering F22 or eurofighter the wikipedia articles pop up as number 2 -3 on google. Each airplane costs millions of dollars - or billions when looking at contracts. The recent typhoon saudi deal is worth 75 billion. Here is what really happened to my opinion: The meeting took place, but once the results were made public, ANYTHING will be done from the US Side to suppress it, discredit it or mention it has ever happened. You likely won't find any USA military person who will confirm anything - their carreer would be over BIG TIME. In fact I think it would probably make sense from a manufacturers point of view to spend some $ and make sure that the number 2-3 spots on the web don't mention this incident - or even hint towards it. After all it would be disastrous if an army spends twice as much $ on a plane that might not be superior. At the end its economic interest... but I think it's wrong to have Wikipedia be ruled by those interests and allow to have these edits continue. The source is a respected print publication - I highly doubt that a wikipedia admin has more knowledge/clout then a print magazine subscribed to by probably all airforces in this world!!

So let's face it - these 2 entries F22 / Typhoon are absolutely crucial and can win/lose millions for the countries economies. Looking at the discussions going on - It's hard to not notice the bias towards the raptor... (since we can't change the person doing these edits opinion or hidden interests) however it quite honestly simply means that the Europeans don't quite have their sh?t together or better lobbying/PR muscle as the F22 fraction does....

You have got to be kidding. Just because one AC is clearly superior and is reflected in the articles has nothing at all to do with bias. The fact is EF is nothing more than the latest high performance conventional fighter. There is nothing new here. It is a fine AC but it has no stealth it has no TVC it has no AESA. It barely super cruises only under certain conditions. While it's ceiling is 65K it cannot manuever and fight at that altitude. The list goes on and on.

Now to the point that these wiki articles pop up on google. So what. First off the Raptor is not for sale, second do you really think that the people who actually make these purchasing decisions give any credence at all to what is written in google. The fact is there is no US side and even if there was it takes two to tango. Where is the British pilot who supposedly flew the plane in this alleged event. What about BAE and EF? What do they have to say about it? Frankly your post about the "American side" shows your ignorance.

Further, the EF consortium certainly has their PR "sh?t" together, but it's not targeted on the Raptor, they are trying to hype the EF in order to "steal" JSF sales. It's not about the magazine, it's about how the magazine reported it and the fact that there is nothing or no one who will attach their name to the rumor. You would think the British pilot has nothing to loose on this one. Why the silence from the British? 162.83.253.25 01:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want the truth just write to the Eurofighter-companies... they'll provide you more details then you can swallow - if you wanna open that can of worms... unsigned - 76.102.190.6 17:43, 24 September 2007

In response to your question, "ALSO why not LEAVING the report in - UNTIL it is proven to be wrong - and if it is then take it out;" logic does not work this way. It is not logical to believe a claim until it is proven incorrect. In order to post content which is useful to the research community of Wikipedia users, the content must be verifiable. Please see Wikipedia's standards on sources, where it is noted that, "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources." This is an online encyclopedia. There are places for discussion of theories of conspiracy and wrong doing, but without credibility, these theories have no place here. Please sign your posts. Please be civil. If you do not agree with rules, procedures, and guidelines of this community, please do not interfere. Thank you for your urge to proliferate information; if you do find more reliable sources to back up your claims, please re-post them. If you have information or published specifications from aerospace manufacturers, please update appropriate articles. This is not, however, an outlet for original research or conspiracy theories. Nicholas SL Smith 20:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

SOMEONE MENTIONED THAT there is absolutely no accreditation anywhere for the story as published by the Magazine. Well GUESS WHAT I FOUND ONE. Here is a link to a forum where a guy mentioned he saw 2 typhoons at the NAS China Lake - that POST IS EXACTLY from the time period when the article stated the comparison happened....the post is from back in 2005 so prior to all this discussion. http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/94610606/m/2601031603

Here is what Jewels_201 wrote in the forum: Jewels_201 Posted Sat April 09 2005 21:09 Hide Post Two Typhoons were at NAS China Lake several weeks ago. One 1-seater and the other a tandem one. That's probably when Gen. Jumper flew the aircraft. I don't doubt that there were DACT/ACM/BFM as well. ~J

So 2 typhoons were there in NAS China Lake, so we have a print report of an aviation magazine and now we also got an eye witness that can verify that at least the typhoons were there (statement made prior to this debatE)... I hate to say it guys but just give it a couple months and we'll have this thing nailed down rock solid... We got the first eyewitness that can VERIFY part of the story... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.190.6 (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Listen up, 76. Forums are never reliable sources. This guy can say whatever he wants to say, that doesn't mean it's true. Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples. Just because it backs up your position does not make it a suitable reference. Parsecboy 00:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Look the forum entry from back in 2005 simply is an indicator that points to part of the story - Look it's an indicator that speaks for IAPR - in contrary you offer nothing but speculations and guesses and wild claims why IAPR is lying (I wonder what your background is). 2nd, Wiki's entry for reliable sources pretty much says nothing, so no matter how much you quote it it still says not much. So talking about sources, lets take a closer look. Read up on IAPR f.e. http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=65296 and tons of other stuff out there - just google iapr and aviation... they are one of the most reliable publications out there - you won't find even a single post that shows even one error of what they're writing - the general consensus of people IN THE FIELD (and that does not include people like you editing an article on wikipedia) is that since they are a quarterly publication if you want up to date news you gotta go for another magazine. However for quality in reporting they are the gold standard. And in comparison, parsecboy, when looking at your writings there is TONS of criticism about your postings, conclusions and text... If one would look at who you are, your resume, cv and knowledge on airpower, and you'd ask 100 people who they'd trust more (and specially if you ask people/pilots in the field) - YOU (claiming IAPR spread lies) or IAPR, EVERYONE would say IAPR... - i'd say we sould go with IAPR. And in regards to good sources - according to the wikipedia definitions - iapr is as good as it gets for sources period!! - just ask anyone in the business, look it up on the web. International Airpower Review IS A SOURCE on the same level as Jane - however as a quarterly magazine more static rather then focused on the latest news and developments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.190.6 (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK I JUST SIGNED up for an account that way I I am not an IP anymore...

Well actually I have a forum source that says the Euro fighters where at Nellis AFB. Frankly it makes more sense since China Lake is a Naval facility used for weapons integration and missile testing of... US Navy AC.

"Yes, The Eurofighter was at Nellis for a short time, and of course some Raptors live here. Although the aircraft were parked at opposite ends of the flightline." http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-3303-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-255.html It came from F-16.net. A forum with a lot of Airforce crew dogs, pilots, and aerospace consultants. By the way the consenus I have found is that IAPR often does report erroneously and it's sources are often unidentified. I suggest you perhaps go to another forum, perhaps an "American" one rather than a British one like Keypublishing and see if IAPAR is considered the "gold standard". I don't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.253.25 (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper or magazine where opinion is often confused with fact. I would also point out that this claim really does not stand up under scrutiny. There is not much out there aside from the one un-verified, unattributable claim from a publication that publishes infrequently and on no particular schedule. In short it fails the smell test. Perhaps Janes or Aviation Week would be a better source for something like this. In fact the article clearly fails the threshold of inclusion according to wiki, read WP:ATTR. Look under Exceptional Claims Require Exceptional Sources. The first two bullets sums up the problem with including it at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.253.25 (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I need to reiterate the importance of civility in discussion of what is appropriate to add to an article. Please read the Wikipedia civility guidelines. All capitalizations is generally considered yelling, and is not polite. Also, please sign your posts; in order to sign a post you must leave four Tildes in a row after what you write. This will help add credibility to your posts. I think there may be poor communication on this topic. No one is claiming that unreliable sources proliferate lies, or that forums are full of lies. We have no evidence of this, and no one is making this claim. All that is asserted here is that there is a certain standard we use here to ensure that the sources we cite are reliable in an academic sense. We can not use forums as sources because they are not academically refereed. No one believes you or anyone else is wrong, we just hold any amazing claims to a high standard of proof before we'll allow it to be written in Wikipedia. Thank you for your help, and I'm sure than if and when more credible accounts of comparative aircraft ability surface, information contained in them will be welcome here if it is appropriately written, and is appropriate content for an article. Nicholas SL Smith 03:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I’m flummoxed by 76.102.190.6’s take on rules of evidence (not just Wikipedia’s standards). Even given IAPR as a reliable source (albeit not on the level of Jane’s), a single source does not necessarily verify a claim, particularly when it is contradicted by another. ‘76’ asserts that the story is verified by an eyewitness: a forum post by someone self-styled as “Jewels_201”. However, contrary to 76’s assertion that this poster is an eyewitness, Jewels_201 never says so. In fact, he gives absolutely no information about himself or the source of his knowledge (firsthand, at the O-Club, a post from another forum, or whatever) for his statement that there were two Typhoons at China Lake (a single-seater and a two-seater); he does not say that he saw them, he just states that they were there. Please compare that to a Eurofighter press release that states there was but a single Typhoon (a two-seater) at China Lake. On which source should greater confidence be placed? Even if it turns out that the Eurofighter press release is mistaken, as the organization that supplied and operated the plane, it is much more probably correct than an anonymous assertion on a forum. This is especially so in a case like this in which an “exceptional claim” has been made – it requires “exceptional sources”, and reports of rumors by anonymous sources posted by anonymous contributors on forums (which Wikipedia expressly treats as “unreliable sources”) don’t quite make the grade. (Ironically, further down on the forum '76' links to regarding IAPR has some interesting discussion about the reputation for reliability that Wikipedia has – the sort we're trying to avoid here.) Askari Mark (Talk) 03:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Cost Escalation

1. In an encyclopedia that supposedly deals with facts citing a source from a report called Independent that was commissioned by the manufacturer is to say the least very suspect. 2. As was pointed out the article is about the Eurofighter not the Raptor or HMS Astute. If we are going to bring other AC into the article using a dubious source then it should at least be balanced by pointing out that due to cost escalation a Tranche II Eurofighter, the one without the AESA radar costs almost as much as a Raptor to which the unit cost from the USAF for 2008 is 137.4 million(http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070212-004.pdf) vs 122 million for the Eurofighter. An aircraft which no one is saying is in any way comparable to the Raptor. IOW not much bang for the buck. In fact if the USAF where to buy 100 more Raptors today the unit cost would cost less than $117 million(http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123022371) So do you want to keep this article about the Eurofighter or should we draw other weapons systems in and tell the complete accurate story?12.164.252.102 06:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The system cost for a Eurofighter is ~ 75 Mio. € euro with engines. That contains parts, weapons, simulator and and and. The USAF price is without engines, without nothing, that is not realy comparable. The Systemcost for your F-22 is 345 Mio. US$ (2005, 178 F-22)!--90.186.147.65 07:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The most recent, documented (right in this wiki article no less)unit cost for the 72 Eurofighters that Saudi Arabia is buying is $122 Million. That is without weapons, guidance systems and no AESA radar. The total projected unit cost for the 2008 Raptors $137.4 Million as documented above. That is with full avionics, engine and an AESA radar. Just add gas pilot and weapons.12.164.252.102 07:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Troll, Germany payed 75 mio systemcost. Austria payed 63 mio euro fly a way and 100 mio systemcost. The dollar is no EU currency. --90.186.147.65 08:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123022371 By the time all 183 jets have been purchased, around $28 billion will have been spent on research and development. An additional $34 billion will have been spent on actually procuring the aircraft. That's about $62 billion for the total program cost. Divided out, that's comes to about $338 million per aircraft.--90.186.147.65 08:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

we are talking about unit cost not procurement cost. The two are different. No the dollar is not EU currency but we use something called exchange rates to come up with comparisons. You cannot compare for three reasons. The development cost is largely hidden for the Eurofighter, the productions runs are not the same so the development costs are not spread out equally, and the two aircraft are not comparable.12.164.252.102 14:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"as much as a Raptor to which the unit cost from the USAF for 2008 is 137.4 million" -LOL, this information is cherry-picked by an F-22 fanatic in that article, the cost of the Raptor is much higher. Dont use 1 polluted article to pollute another.--Financialmodel 11:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Those numbers are in multiple publications and they are the budgetary numbers used by the airfore. The only fanatics here are people like you who refuse to face facts.12.164.252.102 14:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

CDI reports F22 cost as 411 million USD, and 250 million USD flyaway cost. I also found it in few other sources. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-30/distance-kept-lockheed-f-22-out-of-libya-action-schwartz-says.html http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?documentid=4710&programID=37&from_page=../friendlyversion/printversion.cfm http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/TPL_Essay8_2.9.11.pdf In short, both 350 million USD unit program and 150 million USD flyaway cost for F22 are outdated, and should be changed. 78.2.236.42 (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

--Financialmodel (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC) comment start: I didnt see this response, but you want sources? (see Talk:F-22_Raptor#The real price of the F-22)

Content/ F-22-eurofghter / Jumper

The article of the Typhoon seems to be used by F-22 fans as a playground - they all like to quote the Jumper statement in a way so it seems that they are designed for "different levels of performence", where they then indicate the F-22 is better, using quotes from US airforce, when quotes are inserted from same source, only newer, that Jumper say they run "neck on neck" this is deleted". Also a clear quote that a austrian general liked the Typhoon was deleted perhaps, because he said it was the best he had ever flown - all had sources. Do we jsut delete and replace what we dont like when new info is added?--Financialmodel 18:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

All this back-and-forth is fun to those of us who love to discuss aviation, but it's not really accomplishing anything at all. Even the simple section for "Comparable aircraft" is hotly disputed, and the simple guidelines defining are ignored in order to have them not compared at all! This is getting riduculous to the point of earning a position of the Lamest Edit conflicts list! The F-22 and Typhoon are NOT incompetition with each other, either for sales, or in actual combat (and let's hope they aren't in combat against each other). In truth, this has more to do with the USA-Europe rivalry that exists, for a whole host of reasons better not discussed here. But in the end, we're still allies who need each other, like it or not.

Maybe it would be best if we just removed ALL references to comparisons between the Typhoon and Raptor from both articles as being POV, and largely original research. We'll still have to deal with people who think their favorite quote from Air General Bottlestopper of the Smogarian Aerial Corps (this not meant to resemble ANY country) should be in the article, but at least we dump all the back-and-forth BS over whose favorite magazine articles should be in and whose shouldn't. This is an Encylopdia, not an aviation periodical, and the articles should cover the aircraft as specifically as possible. Let's leave the petty bickering (of which I've have been apert, as I LOVE bickering, esp the petty kind!) for others,a nd just try to make good articles better. - BillCJ 19:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Editors appear to use quotes to support there bias and then remove quotes from the same sources that dont agree - I would support BillCJ comments and we should remove text as he has suggested. MilborneOne 21:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Now some idiot have added even more about the F-22 in the article and locked it. This article is now clearly biased and minipulated by raptor fanatics, just read the comparisons, he said they run neck on neck, but now this is removed and its said they are designed for different levels of performence and then 3-4 new lines are added about the F-22. - Who locked this and where can this article be marked as biased?--Financialmodel 03:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You really need to take a deep breath and relax. Once you have done that read all of Jumper's comments. He is being very politcally astute. On the one hand the article reads "Gen. John P. Jumper said the Eurofighter is both agile and sophisticated, but is still difficult to compare to the F/A-22 Raptor. He is the only person to have flown both aircraft." He further goes on to say about the Raptor - But it has additional capabilities that allow it to perform the Air Force's unique missions.

"The F/A-22 Raptor has stealth and supercruise (obviously he is not buying into Eurofighter's super cruise marketing hype)," he said. "It has the ability to penetrate virtually undetected because of (those) capabilities. It is designed to be a penetrating airplane. It can maneuver with the best of them if it has to, but what you want to be able to do is get into contested airspace no matter where it is." Speaking of the Raptor Jumper says - "We all have our roles to play, and the role of the U.S. Air Force is in many ways to kick down the door and make sure the airspace is available for people to do whatever it is they want to do in the air or on the ground under that airspace."

Translation-they are different birds with different missions. The Eurofighter is mainly a superb interceptor, the Raptor is that as well as a penetrating fighter able to go into heavily contested airspace and bring the air war to the enemy.

Lastly, because no one gets to be general without some diplomatic skills he throws this bone that is really contrary to everything else he said. He said he believes the two aircraft are running neck-and-neck, but America must always be vigilant to ensure it stays on the cutting edge of aviation technology.

So in fact you have to add additional quotations from the general. His comments should be included because he is someone in authority who would know the capabilites of both and who has flown both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.222.187 (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Rather than cherry picking, all of hjumper's comments should be included. 70.107.180.242 02:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear what quotes we are talking about removing - General Jumper? The Austrian AF quote? All comparisons? I'm not sure about removing all comparisons between the F-22 and the Typhoon, however I also think its rediculous that there are more comparisons between the Typhoon and Raptor than there are between the Typhoon and Rafale.Mark83 11:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree in fact you could also add in comparisons with the Gripen and Super Hornet as well. All three have a lot of similar capabilities and are of the same vintage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.136.241 (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Stealth

It seems relevent to discuss stealth more in this article. That the typhoon has less stealth, and therefore better aerodynamics, than the American fighters is probably the principal operational distinction between them.

Kitplane01 16:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Stealth is about so much more than planeform. 162.83.224.74 17:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00089/2_Eurofighter_capabi_89302a.pdf How stealht is stealht? Page 41--90.186.191.74 08:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Where do you come up with better airodynamics? The F-22 outperforms the EF. If the JSF performs up to expectation it will as well.141.155.130.103 03:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Very stealthy, especially when you have a LPI radar. BTW if IRST is so good for detecting, tracking and targeting the enemy how come it has not replaced radar. Hint, try looking for a needle in a haystack looking through a straw. Nice sales brochure EADS has there, too bad Super Hornet already has all the toys EF hopes to have one day. At 2/3 the price.70.18.8.23 03:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul Metz, Chief Test Pilot F-22 in an interview with Karlo Kopp- "The decision to integrate the technologies of stealth, supercruise, super-maneuverability and sensor fusion was the result of significant advances in each of these areas in the 1970s and 80s. In particular, stealth technology had advanced to the point that high lift, high angle of attack aerodynamic shapes could co-exist with stealth requirements. This was a significant evolution from the first generation stealth aircraft represented by the SR-71 and A-12. Second generation stealth as evidenced by the F-117 had yet to allow aerodynamic efficiency to co-exist with stealth. Only with the third generation of stealth inherent in the B-2 bomber were we able to achieve efficient aerodynamic shapes with a low radar signature." http://www.ausairpower.net/API-Metz-Interview.html

So much for the "less stealth = better aerodynamics theory" 141.155.130.103 04:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Stealht works against monoradars in X-Band. It,s works not against passiv Radar and not against bistatic Radars. It,s works not against low frequenciess and prevent no Mie-scattering. In forward scatter, the scattering can be modeled using Babinet's principle and as countermeasure to stealth aircraft as the radar cross section (RCS) is determined solely by the silhouette of the aircraft seen by the transmitter, and is unaffected by stealth coatings or shapings. Carlo Kopp and Metz is not really a good source about stealth. http://www.thales-naval.nl/naval/activities/radar-sys/surveillance/products/smart-l.htm --90.187.128.194 06:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh a Thales sales brochure is a really good source for unbiased information, not. What is passive radar anyway? Metz, not a good source? Do you even know who he is?141.155.136.203 13:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You are a Reston Martin Lockheed Troll? --90.187.24.2 17:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The F-35 is much slower and can`t supercruise and a afterburner flame is a great radar reflektor! Not really stealth! Is the F-35 operational? No! Carlo Kopp is a cellphone specialist and Metz is only a testpilot. Metz is neither a physicist nor a mathematician nor an airplane designer! He makes only pure advertising statements! Use SAR-Modes, then appears the F-22 and F-35 as black or blank spots. ;-) B-2 and a F-22 are no really comparable. The B-2 is a tailless flying wing! In Gulf war 1 and 2 Marines destroy first the Iraki Tall Kings Radars and only than was the F-117 secure. Or the intercept of two F-117 in Austria airspace or the shotdown in Kosovo. Nothing is invisible in the radar frequency range below 2 GHz. --HDP 15:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Kitplane your continued attempts at inclusion of a statement that makes it sound like the decision to not make EF stealthy is ridiculous. The plane was not developed for stealth because it's original mission did not call for stealth. Second, Paul Metz, and others, as well as anyone watching an airshow with an F-22 performance will tell you that there is nothing given up in terms of aerodynamics for stealth nor if the goals of the F-35 are to be met will there be any problem with perfromance as well. Please stop inserting your unsupported opinion into the article141.155.136.203 13:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul Metz is a subject matter expert for this issue. He was a fighter pilot, a test pilot for the B2, YF-23, F-35 as well as the F-22. His graduate studies are in Aeronautical Engineering. He is a Fellow and past President of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots. He has received several awards directly related to the profession...... It keeps going.

http://sections.asme.org/CentralOK/monthlyNLs/January_2007.pdf

Further according to Wiki "Test pilots must have an excellent knowledge of aeronautical engineering, in order to understand how they are testing and why."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_pilot

Lastly, he retired from LM in 2006. He has no reason to make this stuff up. Metz is indeed qualified and an expert in both aerodynamics and stealth and he says the two are no longer mutually exclusive.

66.155.195.2 12:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Then show us a scientific paper from Paul Metz about stealth!

• The NACA 6-series was designed for low-drag at transonic speeds.
• Drawback
• 1. High drag outside of the optimum range of operating conditions
• 2. High pitching moment
• 3. Poor stall behavior
• 4. Very susceptible to roughness --90.187.191.157 15:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Always good to see that the saying a little bit of knowledge is dangerous. You have certainly prove that point 90.187.191.157. Variants of the NACA 6 series of foils are used in sailboat keels all the way through such high performance jet fighters as the F-4 Phantom and the F-15. No one would argue that the F-15 is in any way lacking in aerodynamic excellence. Here is a list for you to go educate yourself. http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html208.39.157.25 15:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Always good to see that the saying a little bit of knowledge is dangerous. First should you learn a little bit history and educate yourself. The Phantom II was a very potent spiner and flat spiner before introduction of the leading edge slates and some other changes. --90.186.125.121 05:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A Sailboat can fly?

• IP 162.83.253.25 NSA IP Range
• IP 141.155.136.203 NSA IP Range --HDP 21:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• What mean LPI?
• Pulscompression.
• Monopuls.
• Bandwidth (wideband)

You think that all is only obtainable with ASEA? Think again. Yea, great is better. Not always. Nmax = 100* 0,5/(df/fo)!

• Yea, SUPER BUG!

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/05/navy_boeing_superhornet_070517/ How many AN/APG-79 are filded?--90.187.37.228 07:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is on the Eurofighter Typhoon and this talk page is not a discussion forum. -Fnlayson 13:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks more like a discussion forum everyday can anybody stop all this IP nonsense? MilborneOne 21:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Stealth/reduced observability paragraph

The entire paragraph is removed for the following reasons: 1. Global Security article cited makes NO MENTION of either F-35 or F-22. 2. Global Security article referneced links (that which the article bases it's fact on) DO NOT WORK. 3. Paul Metz has no reason to lie and I would say he is far more qualified to make judgements on airodynamic performance than JWCOOK or the Eurofighter PR page. 4. Proof for your own eyes - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW2Hvu_mUdU The fact is the EF is not designed for stealth because th emanufacturer does not know how to do it. Not because of some BS about not compromising on airodynamic performance. If you think the claim should be put back in then fix the citations and debunk what Metz said.

EADS and BAE had no stealth know how? That is BS! http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/MMB_Lampyridae_Page.htm

http://www.f-104.de/exponates/english/exp_lampyridae_eng.html BAE Replica --90.187.58.89 22:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul Metz, Chief Test Pilot F-22 in an interview with Karlo Kopp- "The decision to integrate the technologies of stealth, supercruise, super-maneuverability and sensor fusion was the result of significant advances in each of these areas in the 1970s and 80s. In particular, stealth technology had advanced to the point that high lift, high angle of attack aerodynamic shapes could co-exist with stealth requirements. This was a significant evolution from the first generation stealth aircraft represented by the SR-71 and A-12. Second generation stealth as evidenced by the F-117 had yet to allow aerodynamic efficiency to co-exist with stealth. Only with the third generation of stealth inherent in the B-2 bomber were we able to achieve efficient aerodynamic shapes with a low radar signature." http://www.ausairpower.net/API-Metz-Interview.html h a Thales sales brochure is a really good source for unbiased information, not. What is passive radar anyway? Metz, not a good source? Do you even know who he is?141.155.136.203 13:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Metz's Qualifications: Paul Metz is a subject matter expert for this issue. He was a fighter pilot, a test pilot for the B2, YF-23, F-35 as well as the F-22. His graduate studies are in Aeronautical Engineering. He is a Fellow and past President of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots. He has received several awards directly related to the profession...... It keeps going. http://sections.asme.org/CentralOK/monthlyNLs/January_2007.pdf

Further according to Wiki "Test pilots must have an excellent knowledge of aeronautical engineering, in order to understand how they are testing and why." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_pilot Lastly, he retired from LM in 2006. He has no reason to make this stuff up. Metz is indeed qualified and an expert in both aerodynamics and stealth and he says the two are no longer mutually exclusive. 66.155.195.2 12:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Metz is neither physicist nor mathematician nor aerodynamicist! Otherwise Lockheed Martin should fire directly all their airplane technical designers and aerodynamicist. The need only the testpilot Metz! Kopp is not really the best source. Kopp mean that the F-35 is inefficient and mismatching for Australia. --90.187.158.178 23:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Karlo Kopp "The JSF's stealth design is optimised by shaping for the X-band and Ku/K/Ka-bands, which fits the most likely threats US operated JSFs will encounter - highly mobile battlefield air defence weapons and fighter air intercept radars. The serrated nozzle and inlet design reflect this 'narrowband' optimisation - with increasing radar wavelength both will progressively lose effectiveness. The inlet tunnels use S-bending and absorbent materials, while the tailpipe is claimed to use a blocking structure, both most effective in the X-band. The planform and edge alignment is much less disciplined than that in the F-22A or YF-23A, again less critical for an X-band threat confined mostly to the fore/aft sectors. This is the pitfall of economy 'narrowband' stealth - it can defeat upper band radars used for the engagement control, but is much less effective in defeating the long range systems used to acquire targets. If an Su-30 can be positioned close enough, it can engage the JSF regardless of stealth, and with a kinematic and missile performance advantage the odds are unlikely to favour the JSF."

The Su-30 Radar works in X and L-Band. The L-Band mode rips your stealth off!--90.186.165.53 09:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Again, that paragraph mainly stated the EF has a reduced radar cross section. Big deal. Both links work just fine and neither followed the F-22 / F-35 sentence. I removed that. You removed the aero/stealth tradeoff, which wasn't really needed anyway. -Fnlayson 06:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The links in the reference section of the global security article do not work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.173.106 (talk) 06:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The only links on that Global Security ref page are the Eurofighter home page and some image page. The former is easy enough to figure out. But it doesn't really matter now with that part and reference removed. -Fnlayson 07:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Talking about stealth in regards to the Eurofighter is absolutely ridiculous. Kitplane's insistence on keeping it is further proof that Wikipedia is a farce. Your "source" http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/structure.html for the claim that the Eurofighter is second only to the F-22 in stealth is laughable. In fact no such thing is claimed the actual quotewhich is as follows:

"The actual radar cross section is of course classified, it is however set out for the RAF in SR(A)-425. According to the RAF the Eurofighter's RCS more than exceeds these requirements. More recent comments from BAE seem to indicate the radar return is around four times less than the Tornado. During a recent press event BAE Systems stated that the Typhoon's RCS is bettered only by the F-22 in the frontal hemisphere and betters the F-22 at some angles. Although the later comment is very questionable it still indicates a real attempt to reduce the Typhoon's radar signature."

So we have a problem on several levels. There is an implication of something that we know is empirically wrong - NO ONE has ever said that the RCS of the EF is less the the F-117 or B2. the web cite used as a source is a fanboy website and it's "facts" are suspect. Lastly RCS is classified for ANY military aircraft. In fact one could argue that the Rafale, Viggen and Super Hornet all have a lower RCS than Eurofighter. The entire stealth part of the article should be removed and mention should rightfully be given in the design section that the Eurofighter has had RAM applied to the leading edges and intakes. But low frontal RCS, don't make me laugh, there is this big metal antenna right in the nose of the aircraft that reflects and generates plenty of RF energy. That is one of the reasons why AESA radar is so important. Aside from being LPI. The chips that make up the antenna are steered electronically so the antenna can be canted at an angle to deflect incoming RF energy.151.204.148.50 02:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Your AESA reflect more. Why? It's always pointing in the same direction.;)

Therefore is it canted at the F-35. ;) Canted degrade the focus, the effective size and range in the frontal hemisphere.;) http://www.radartutorial.eu/17.bauteile/bt36.en.html F22 and EF: Therefore is the radom polarization and frequncies selective (bandpass), the antenna is not canted! For LPI you should first learn what LPI mean and how a slot antenna works!!!

Viggen, Gripen, Rafale and Hornet have oval air intakes that is not very stealty. Rino, F-22 and EF have angular intakes. ;)

• EF: RAM = Canard, leading edge slates, intake, vertical stabilizer.

http://www.airpower.at/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2629 ;) http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airpower.at%2Fforum%2Fviewtopic.php%3Ft%3D2629&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools --90.186.76.28 12:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 151.204.148.50. If no one objects, the stealth section will be removed. 90.186.76.28, I do not understand the above paragraph - it makes no assertions; it only has statements which are seemingly unconnected and serve no purpose. Also, are you 'winking' after each sentence? Nicholas SL Smith 20:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The opinion of a Lockheed of coworker is insignificant. You have only pure economic interest! --90.186.128.244 13:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This sort of comment has no place in Wikipedia discussion sections. Lockheed is a competitor to Boeing. My opinion is valid. Be civil; refer to WP:ICA. Nicholas SL Smith 00:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

AESA does not reflect more. In fact AESA greatly reduces frontal RCS. The "chips" that make up the antenna are not made of metal as a conventional antenna. The beam is steered electronically rather than by moving the antenna. The array is tilted so that the reflected RF energy does not bounce directly back to the radar emitter. I think the Stealth Paragraph should be removed.70.107.173.5 02:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That is probably the largest BS which I ever read. On the front OF YOUR CHIPS IS A METAL PATCH ANTENNA AND THIS METAL PATCH ANTENNA IS A GREAT REFLECTOR FOR HF!--90.186.128.244 13:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

One other thing, since we are citing forums, the canards greatly inhibit stealth. They are just another large reflecting surface that if not (and they are not on the EF)aligned with the planeform (the leading edge of the canards are not aligned with the leading edge of the wing) add greatly to RCS.70.107.173.5 03:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Maro is Janes correspondent (and Janes corresspondents a most reliable source! Or not?) the quotation came from this:

[1] The effect of dihedral on RCS have you not understand. --90.186.128.244 14:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As has been stated before this talk page is only to discuss the related article, if you want to chatter please use your own talk pages. Thank you. MilborneOne 17:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

To recap. -- I agree with 151.204.148.50. If no one objects, the stealth section will be removed. I'll give another chance; lets stay on the topic before the section is removed. Nicholas SL Smith 00:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Kitplane has made objections to the modification to the article - please voice them here so we can discuss and determine whether they are appropriate to add back. Nicholas SL Smith 22:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Stealth (redux)

Yes, stealth is about more than planeform, but that is part of the equation. Also, the willingness to carry payload externally is another part.

Do you disagree with this globalsecurity.org quote?

For example, "The use of Stealth technology is incorporated throughout the aircraft’s basic design. The design of the Eurofighter Typhoon has not sacrificed flexibility of weapon carriage, maneuverability or performance to produce an inflexible stealth aircraft but it does contain a comprehensive suite of stealth features. Designing a fighter aircraft for stealth alone means making compromises to its aerodynamic and manoeuvre performance as well as restricting the number of weapons that aircraft can carry." at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter.htm

The Global Security quote references links that DO NOT WORK. The Global Security Quote references if they did work point ot the manufacturers marketing and PR site. People who know, including Paul Metz disagree. Design tradeoffs where true with earlier generation stealth AC but this is clearly no longer true (and documented) with current stealth designs.

We go throught this over and over and the FACTS CLEARLY indicaet that you are WRONG KITPLANE.

Kitplane01 06:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The Global Security quote references links that DO NOT WORK. The Global Security Quote references if they did work point ot the manufacturers marketing and PR site. People who know, including Paul Metz disagree. Design tradeoffs where true with earlier generation stealth AC but this is clearly no longer true (and documented) with current stealth designs.

We go throught this over and over and the FACTS CLEARLY indicaet that you are WRONG KITPLANE.71.247.5.59 14:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Stealth is about so much more than planeform. 162.83.224.74 17:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC) http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00089/2_Eurofighter_capabi_89302a.pdf How stealht is stealht? Page 41--90.186.191.74 08:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Where do you come up with better airodynamics? The F-22 outperforms the EF. If the JSF performs up to expectation it will as well.141.155.130.103 03:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The F-35 is now approx 2 years behind schedule! GAO 30% cost grow, 60% of development remaining. [2][3]

Very stealthy, especially when you have a LPI radar. BTW if IRST is so good for detecting, tracking and targeting the enemy how come it has not replaced radar. Hint, try looking for a needle in a haystack looking through a straw. Nice sales brochure EADS has there, too bad Super Hornet already has all the toys EF hopes to have one day. At 2/3 the price.70.18.8.23 03:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea, SUPER BUG! http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/05/navy_boeing_superhornet_070517/ How many AN/APG-79 are filded?--90.187.37.228 07:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.187.6.66 (talk)

Paul Metz, Chief Test Pilot F-22 in an interview with Karlo Kopp- "The decision to integrate the technologies of stealth, supercruise, super-maneuverability and sensor fusion was the result of significant advances in each of these areas in the 1970s and 80s. In particular, stealth technology had advanced to the point that high lift, high angle of attack aerodynamic shapes could co-exist with stealth requirements. This was a significant evolution from the first generation stealth aircraft represented by the SR-71 and A-12. Second generation stealth as evidenced by the F-117 had yet to allow aerodynamic efficiency to co-exist with stealth. Only with the third generation of stealth inherent in the B-2 bomber were we able to achieve efficient aerodynamic shapes with a low radar signature." http://www.ausairpower.net/API-Metz-Interview.html h a Thales sales brochure is a really good source for unbiased information, not. What is passive radar anyway? Metz, not a good source? Do you even know who he is?141.155.136.203 13:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Kitplane your continued attempts at inclusion of a statement that makes it sound like the decision to not make EF stealthy is ridiculous. The plane was not developed for stealth because it's original mission did not call for stealth. Second, Paul Metz, and others, as well as anyone watching an airshow with an F-22 performance will tell you that there is nothing given up in terms of aerodynamics for stealth nor if the goals of the F-35 are to be met will there be any problem with perfromance as well. Please stop inserting your unsupported opinion into the article141.155.136.203 13:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul Metz is a subject matter expert for this issue. He was a fighter pilot, a test pilot for the B2, YF-23, F-35 as well as the F-22. His graduate studies are in Aeronautical Engineering. He is a Fellow and past President of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots. He has received several awards directly related to the profession...... It keeps going. http://sections.asme.org/CentralOK/monthlyNLs/January_2007.pdf

Further according to Wiki "Test pilots must have an excellent knowledge of aeronautical engineering, in order to understand how they are testing and why." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_pilot Lastly, he retired from LM in 2006. He has no reason to make this stuff up. Metz is indeed qualified and an expert in both aerodynamics and stealth and he says the two are no longer mutually exclusive. 66.155.195.2 12:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Always good to see that the saying a little bit of knowledge is dangerous. You have certainly prove that point 90.187.191.157. Variants of the NACA 6 series of foils are used in sailboat keels all the way through such high performance jet fighters as the F-4 Phantom and the F-15. No one would argue that the F-15 is in any way lacking in aerodynamic excellence. Here is a list for you to go educate yourself. http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html208.39.157.25 15:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Always good to see that the saying a little bit of knowledge is dangerous. First should you learn a little bit history and educate yourself. The Phantom II was a very potent spiner and flat spiner before introduction of the leading edge slates and some other changes. --90.186.125.121 05:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.187.6.66 (talk)

Many articles about the Eurofighter mention this tradeoff. For example, "The use of Stealth technology is incorporated throughout the aircraft’s basic design. The design of the Eurofighter Typhoon has not sacrificed flexibility of weapon carriage, maneuverability or performance to produce an inflexible stealth aircraft but it does contain a comprehensive suite of stealth features. Designing a fighter aircraft for stealth alone means making compromises to its aerodynamic and manoeuvre performance as well as restricting the number of weapons that aircraft can carry." at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter.htm.

How about "Stealth comes at a high cost in aerodynamic performance, which the LCA and Eurofighter designers avoided." at http://www.stratmag.com/issue2Dec-15/page02.htm.

The BBC thinks that the Eurofighter's stealthiness is important. They think there is a tradeoff between stealth and aerodynamics. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1818077.stm

One can also find a mention of the trade-off in many scholarly articles, for example cosmos.ucdavis.edu/2003/cluster%206/Jae%20Park/index.htm.

The most important operational differences between the Eurofighter and the new American fighters are that the Eurofighter is less stealthy and can carry external stores.

Finally, if you disagree say why here and don't edit war. Kitplane01 06:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You are the only one doing the edit war Kitplane. Your Global Security does not mention anything about the design of the F-35 and F-22. Further, the links that the article uses as references do not work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.151.229 (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Billcj says to seek consensus before changing the Eurofighter page. But what I've written is true, relevent, and cited. The only problem is that some anonymous person keep deleting it.

Mr. Billcj, I have looked at your talk page and seen your contributions. You've got my respect and I'd be happy to work with you. Besides that some anonymous person keeps reverting my two sentences, is there a problem? What would you have them say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The formal NATO definition (since 1964) is: Short Take-Off and Landing is the ability of an aircraft to clear a 15 m (50 ft) obstacle within 450 m (1,500 ft) of commencing take-off or, in landing, to stop within 450 m (1,500 ft) after passing over a 15 m (50 ft) obstacle. --HDP 09:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh gosh. I completely agree there is a standard definition of STOL and the Europefighter does not meet it, though it is rather short take-off-and-landing. I was referring to the stealth stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Take off distance is 1500ft for A2A with 4 AMRAAM 2 ASRAAM 3 dropetanks (17t metric). That is STOL. Eurofighter capability page 54. --HDP 08:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Kit, I'm glad you're willing to discuss this here. Sorry there was some confusion on the NATO STOL definition. I was cleaning that out at the same time, and didn't think that was what you were adding in here. THe other user is being dealt with administratively, and if he contiues to flout WIkipedia rules, will find the whole article blocked for a time. Also, please try to post new sections at the bottom of the talk page, not the talk. We also try to post new comments at the end of the sections were possible, unless there is one particular thread where one needs to respond, but other posts may have been added before one had a chance to respond. These things make it easier to follow new topics and threads.

Let's try concentrate on working out the best paragraph on stealth/performance that we can here, and then get a consensus to include it. THere do appear to be conflicting sources on the degree stealth affects the performances of the F-22 and F-35, and the best thing here is to find the best sources available, and present them. We don't have to take a side one way or another if those sources disagree, just to present the whole objectively, if possible. - BillCJ 20:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone agrees that the non-total-stealthiness of the Eurofighter allows it to carry external stores, as opposed to the F-22 and F-117 which cannot reasonably carry external stores while performing their mission.

Everyone also agrees that the shape of a stealthy plane is limited in ways a non-stealthy fighter is not. For example, there can be no straight path from the front view to the front turbines of the jet engines. An intake like the F-14 or Tornado cannot be stealthy. Flat feusalage are bad (like the Tornado). Because the Typhoon had some stealthiness, it had some of these restrictions. Because the F-22 (for instance) had stronger stealth requirements, it also had stronger shape restrictions.

The only question is how much the Eurofighter benefited from this lack of restriction. Since it seems unlikely anyone is going to find a number, it seems reasonable to say "some", especially since that can be cited from a reputable source. I've changed the stealth paragraph to reflect this.

Kitplane01 21:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment on the changed stealth paragraph - why all the references to american aircraft like F-22 and F-35 should the paragraph just talk about the Typhoon? this is the Typhoon article. Perhaps I should add that the Typhoon is more stealthier than the Avro Vulcan ! MilborneOne 22:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to compare the stealthiness of the Typhoon with other, comparable planes. After all, these planes are combat airplanes, designed for combat against other planes. It's not like they are transports that just do a job, they must fight. If you'd like me to use fewer American and more European examples, I'd be happy to. However, there are no stealth European planes, so that's a challenge. It could read "more stealthy than the Harrier or Tornado, but less than the F-35 and F-22".

Kitplane01 01:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

True there are no stealth European planes, there are no stealth Russian planes for that matter. AS with most aircraft of the same generation as Eurofighter there are plenty of planes that measures where taken to reduce RCS. Rafale and Super Hornet come to mind. They are much better comparison than F-22 and F-35.71.247.11.28 05:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The entire entry on stealth in regards to the Typhoon is ridiculous. True Stealth aircraft are orders of magnitude "stealthier". This applies to emissions control in the use of LPI radar, masking the exhaust as well as radar. Claiming the Eurofighter is stealthy is like someone saying they are a little bit pregnant. Yes, the plane has had RAM applied, but that is about all. It is no more stealthy than it's contemporaries such as the Rafale and Super Hornet. A better way to understand the degree of "stealthiness" on these aircraft is that it is much like applying camoflage. Nothing more and there really is nothing out there that says otherwise. I would quote from the official Eurofighter website from which the Global Security entry uses as its reference and which it misquotes - "Stealth technology is incorporated in the basic design. Features include low frontal Radar Cross Section (RCS), passive sensors and supercruise capability." (http://www.eurofighter.com/et_mp_df.asp)There is nothing said about how carrying external weapons increases an aircraft's radar cross section. That should be pretty obvious to everyone.71.247.11.28 05:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree - for that matter, the F-14 had stealthy aspects (had a similarly low RCS), but we can all agree that the F-14 was not a LO aircraft. We should leave LO information to LO aircraft articles. Nicholas SL Smith 20:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact is if you are carrying your stores internally your aerodynamics are going to be much better than a similar airplane carrying external weapons. To try to make the case that Eurofighter was not made especially stealthy because they wanted to have the advantage of being able to carry external stores is lunacy. Further the insinuation in the article that the Eurofighter's "stealthiness falls somewhere between an F-117 and the F-22 is pure fantasy and again has no basis in fact.71.247.11.28 05:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly the stealth paragraph should not be included. The plane is not in the same class in regards to stealth as the f-117, B-2 or any other truly LO aircraft. I sentence such as "The Typhoon incorporates RAM and other design features to reduce it's radar cross section to some extent."71.247.11.28 05:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, both the F-22 and F-35 can and will carry external stores in certain situations. In fact the F-22 has four 5000 pound plumbed stations. See http://strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-47689.aspx for pictures of F-22 jettisoning two fuel tanks. The F-35 has six external hard points. But again all of this is moot since they can both carry a full war load internally. So why is is this even brought up in the article?71.247.11.28 05:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Talking about stealth in regards to the Eurofighter is absolutely ridiculous. Kitplane's insistence on keeping it is further proof that Wikipedia is a farce. Your "source" http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/structure.html for the claim that the Eurofighter is second only to the F-22 in stealth is laughable. In fact no such thing is claimed the actual quotewhich is as follows:

"The actual radar cross section is of course classified, it is however set out for the RAF in SR(A)-425. According to the RAF the Eurofighter's RCS more than exceeds these requirements. More recent comments from BAE seem to indicate the radar return is around four times less than the Tornado. During a recent press event BAE Systems stated that the Typhoon's RCS is bettered only by the F-22 in the frontal hemisphere and betters the F-22 at some angles. Although the later comment is very questionable it still indicates a real attempt to reduce the Typhoon's radar signature."

So we have a problem on several levels. There is an implication of something that we know is empirically wrong - NO ONE has ever said that the RCS of the EF is less the the F-117 or B2. the web cite used as a source is a fanboy website and it's "facts" are suspect. Lastly RCS is classified for ANY military aircraft. In fact one could argue that the Rafale, Viggen and Super Hornet all have a lower RCS than Eurofighter. The entire stealth part of the article should be removed and mention should rightfully be given in the design section that the Eurofighter has had RAM applied to the leading edges and intakes. But low frontal RCS, don't make me laugh, there is this big metal antenna right in the nose of the aircraft that reflects and generates plenty of RF energy. That is one of the reasons why AESA radar is so important. Aside from being LPI. The chips that make up the antenna are steered electronically so the antenna can be canted at an angle to deflect incoming RF energy.151.204.148.50 02:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Your AESA reflect more. Why? It's always pointing in the same direction.;)Therefore is it canted at the F-35. ;) Canted degrade the focus, the effective size and range in the frontal hemisphere.;) http://www.radartutorial.eu/17.bauteile/bt36.en.html F22 and EF: Therefore is the radom polarization and frequncies selective (bandpass), the antenna is not canted! For LPI you should first learn what LPI mean and how a slot antenna works!!!

Viggen, Gripen, Rafale and Hornet have oval air intakes that is not very stealty. Rhino, F-22 and EF have angular intakes. ;)*EF: RAM = Canard, leading edge slates, intake, vertical stabilizer.

http://www.airpower.at/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2629 ;)

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airpower.at%2Fforum%2Fviewtopic.php%3Ft%3D2629&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools --90.186.76.28 12:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, 90.186.76.28, do not reference forums here. Forums have no place as evidence and do not replace discussion on Wikipedia. Nicholas SL Smith 21:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Maro is Janes correspondent (and Janes corresspondents a most reliable source! Or not?) ;) the source for quotation came from this:

[4]You know what a MW-1 is and that Skalp and Taurus are stealth? ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.186.46.224 (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As has been stated before this talk page is only to discuss the related article, if you want to chatter please use your own talk pages. Thank you. MilborneOne 17:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets not get into an edit war boys. The latest changes to stealth are about as much compromise as I can stand. Frankly it still stinks but I guess we all know that stuff found in wiki should be taken with a grain of salt. 141.155.128.109 23:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it is "with a grain of salt" that we must take Wikipedia articles. Any museum or encyclopedia is written from a particular point of view. Sometimes there are no "absolute truths." Interpretation is a necessary part of writing or presentation of historical data. I think is it important to relax and treat others with respect here. In reality, compromise and consensus is the only way to figure out what to represent, which is why scientific journals are refereed (they require other professionals or academics in a field to agree). Nicholas SL Smith 05:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the whole "stealth" section needed to be removed. The problematical parts are the second paragraph and to some extent the last one. While the EF wasn't designed to be stealthy, per se, the use of signature reduction techniques (through shaping, treatments, etc.) was a specified requirement and it certainly has a lower RCS than the previous-generation Tornado that it is replacing. It is the implication that the Typhoon is "stealthy" in a similar degree to the F-22 and the one-sided assertion about the latest generation of stealth requiring an aerodynamic penalty that need to be excised or reworked. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable - Why don't I add the section back in, but remove portions which assert that the aircraft is stealthy. Stealth and low observability are different. Read as was, the section stated that this aircraft is a stealth aircraft only topped by the F-22, and then, only at certain angles. The important thing to note is that this aircraft is not a stealth aircraft. Any other portrayal would be inaccurate, and would mislead readers. Nicholas SL Smith 04:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Typhoon on TV

Is it worthwhile mentioning that the plane was featured in a BBC TV programme hosted by James May? No doubt there will be a long list of 'VIPs' who have been flown supersonically (doubt May was) like they used to in the two-seat Lightning. Not sure the Tiffie has appeared in any movies yet. James Bond perhaps? Other Wiki's have such 'trivia' included. Don't want to lower the tone but... Cheers Roy Royzee 12:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it would be appropriate to mention the Typhoon's popular culture appearances. Nicholas SL Smith 21:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Was there anything particularly noteworthy about the film and its portrayal of the aeroplane? If not, then it's just one of (eventually) many that will be made featuring it. Now, if it were to get a major award as an outstanding documentary or something like that, it probably would be notable. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ho ho - May is unlikely to get an award with that haircut. There were several noteworthy aspects in the clip. To his credit he did not throw up. Maybe I will make a clip of it and put it on YT so you can make a judgement. On a similar note from the preview shown on the latest Top Gear the news series will show another one of those races involving a Tiffie vs a car. I have seen one of these on YT - maybe this should be mentioned, a Typhoon vs Ferrari? See: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUruFwWEz4k Royzee 15:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Update - there is a video on YT showing the BBC filming the soon to be aired contest between a Bugatti and a Typhoon: [5] Royzee 17:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Also there are photos on Air Attack: http://www.air-attack.com/php/displ_img.php?imgurl=/MIL/eurofighter/typhoon_veyron_2_20071013.jpg Royzee 06:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as showing the Top Gear race, the video is awful. However it does show aerobatic performance by the Typhoon that is a first view for me! However let's wait until the episode airs to see if it is indeed notable. Regarding the Ferrari/Typhoon race - is it really notable? Seems more like a publicity stunt to me by whoever initiated it (Alenia/Eurofighter GmbH/Ferrari). Finally, Royzee, please keep your comments on topic - you seem to be focusing as much on your apparent dislike of James May as on improvements to the article. Mark83 19:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Ho ho. My style seems to come over as sarcastic. I do actually prefer May to those other TG chaps. Like his books too. I agree the Ferrari race was a publicity stunt. Nevertheless, it does have some merit as probably the first public demo of one aspect of its power. It also serves as a reassurance to the taxpayers that their money is being well-spent etc. Oops maybe I am sounding sarcastic;) Also, while I agree with you that the video quality is not optimal it is a unique record. This is where YT scores, generous people who take the time to share their clips can provide a glimpse we would otherwise be denied. I know what goes in to preparing clips for YT and it's not a five minute job. So thanks to them for bothering. OK there is a show-off element but I am grateful they share. Like you I have yet to see a full Tiffie display. Time to get off my hobbyhorse and get back to work! Cheers Roy Royzee 09:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Validity of an edit needs to be checked

Would the regulars from WP:AIR please check this edit for validity? It removed sourced information. It was made several times under an IP and then by a brand new user, who is actually our old sockpuppet friend once known as Wikzilla, as are the IP comments above signed 141.155.128.109. I have reverted per process, as edits by banned users aren't normally allowed to stand, but in the interest of accuracy, I wanted someone else to review it to see if his edits this time had any validity. Thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use of a Paragraph

This paragraph

The actual radar cross section is of course classified, it is however set out for the RAF in SR(A)-425. :According to the RAF the Eurofighter's RCS more than exceeds these requirements. More recent comments :from BAE seem to indicate the radar return is around four times less than the Tornado. During a recent :press event BAE Systems stated that the Typhoon's RCS is bettered only by the F-22 in the frontal :hemisphere and betters the F-22 at some angles.

was taken from the cited site. It's one paragraph from a large site, use for educational purpose. I believe this qualifies for "fair use", however I will be willing to rewrite it if need be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason that it can't be paraphrased.Mark83 10:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It would appropriate to enclose it in quotes if it is a complete section of text from a source. Fair use comes into play more if you are commenting on the text itself. GraemeLeggett 13:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Message to Mark

Hi Mark, got your request about pasting in stuff verbatim - my intent was benign as I was alerting people like yourself who presumably may want to edit the stuff and pop it in some time in your own style rather than me do it and maybe incur the wrath of others. Will desist from now on.

BTW I like your list of each Tiffie and what each has done. I wonder which aircraft were chosen for the recent flypast - this was my first sight of this aircraft. Like London buses, hadn't seen one and then 6 come by at once! Cheers Roy PS Have sent the message this way as I could not see how to reply to your private message.

Royzee 08:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I realise you were only trying to make sure important information was added. Feel free to add information (paraphrased with the link) to the article itself, everyone is entitled to. If someone has a problem with it they can tweak it. Mark83 10:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Italy & Tranche 3

According to reports such as in Flight International, Italy is grappling with a funding dilemma over Tranche 3 Eurofighters. A news item by Pino Modola reports how their government moved to guarantee funding for the next five years. However, it has not yet formally committed to the Tranche 3 production phase thanks to cost concerns. Italy has 24 of its 75 Typhoons as per the first two production tranches. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/10/08/217866/italy-grapples-with-funding-dilemma-over-tranche-3-eurofighters.html

Royzee 12:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, all of the partners are discussing the impact of potential reduced buys.[6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Askari Mark (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Heavy weapons trials

A short report on Flight about trials - photo of the impressive warload notably with various LGBs re-emphasising its ground attack role as opposed to interception, CAP etc.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/10/16/218667/picture-uk-royal-air-force-eurofighter-typhoon-conducts-heavy-weapons-trials.html

Royzee 06:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Note on IP reversions

(I left this note on the IP's talk page, but since it's probably a dynamic IP, that editor will likely never see it, so I'm dropping a copy here) Please do not removed cited information as you did at Eurofighter Typhoon. If you believe that the information is incorrect, go to the talk page and discuss it. What is your removal based on? Your own opinion that it is factually incorrect? There are opinions that disagree with that, and in the end, this isn't a place for your opinion anyway, it's a place for cited material. So, where's your source for showing that this is "factually incorrect"? Bill wasn't insinuating that you couldn't add meaningful content, what the issue is is that new editors are often unaware of our guidelines and policies, and therefore edit from the wrong direction. I'd rather not semi-protect this page again, so please edit within the parameters of how we do things. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the IP editor's reinsertion of the info, and his edit summary: Just because you leave a note on my talk page is not a reason to reinsert the information. Follow the process: bring the information and you citations that justify your opinions here, discuss it. Please read our consensus policy. If you're reverted, you don't keep adding the info back in, you go to the talk page and discuss it, and you don't add it in until consensus is reached that the information is a) appropriate and b) properly sourced. It's that process of vetting and peer review that results in credibility. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

S-protect

If IP editors want to edit war instead of discussing things here like they've been asked to numerous times by multiple project editors, then IPs simply don't get to edit here. Follow the rules, have a little patience to let process work, and things will be fine. This is an encyclopedia, not a wild web forum. Thumb your nose at the rules, and this is the result. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Japan may buy Eurofighter

According to statements in the media the Japanese Defence Minister Shigeru Ishiba has gone on record suggesting his country might consider acquiring the Typhoon. In an interview he said the strongest alternative among planes made other countries was the Eurofighter. He stated that the Rafale was difficult to use, they couldn't consider a Russian fighter plane so he thought the Typhoon was all that was left. There has been some falling out with the US over leaking of information about the US Aegis radar system making the F22 less of an option at least for now.

See, for example Reuters:

http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=allBreakingNews&storyID=2007-10-17T101801Z_01_T350585_RTRIDST_0_JAPAN-DEFENCE-FIGHTERS.XML

Royzee 06:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Typhoons to Romania

There was a report on google News linking to a Chinese newspaper People's Daily Online. It referred to Eurofighter consortium being ready to deliver 24 Typhoon aircraft to the Romanian Air Force in the 2010-2014 period said program director for Romania Giuseppe Paoletti at a press conference organized within the EXPOMIL 2007 show in Bucharest. It added that they could provide the first operational squadron of Typhoon warplanes in 2010 replacing its present MiG-21 Lancer planes. [Better get those pilots into training if they are to going to be able to handle these much more complex aircraft by then IMO]. See: http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90781/90876/6287157.html Royzee 07:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see whether Romania buys new aircraft. Poland's F-16 purchase was a stretch for them and their economy is much stronger than Romania's. I wouldn't be surprised to see them go for the Gripen like the Thais recently did and for the same reasons. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that the Romanian Ministry of Defense has sufficient funds (4 billion euros) to acquire 48, not 24, new fighter aircraft (Gripen or Eurofighter, most like Eurofighter after Gripen's many crashes in the past few years). It will be the biggest acquirement in Romania's history. The decision regarding the aircraft will be made in summer 2008. --Eurocopter tigre 19:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Tranche 2, Typhoon Development

In a short article about the Tranche 2, Typhoon Development, the Tiffie's 'Instrumented Production Aircraft 6' (IPA6) at Warton completed engine runs; the first time it has worked as a complete system independently of ground support equipment.

http://www.technologynewsdaily.com/node/8267 Royzee 07:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

First flight of IPA6 took place on 1 November 2007, under the control of project Test Pilot Mark Bowman, taking off at 13.06 hrs hours and staying airborne for 54 minutes. While IPA6 (BS031) is essentially a Tranche 1 standard aircraft, it uses the full Tranche 2 mission computer suite and avionics features. IPA7 (GS029) is the first aircraft that represents the full Tranche 2 build standard. http://www.eurofighter.com/news/20071101_ipa6.asp Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sensor Order for Typhoon

In a PR Opsens Inc. announced an order from BAE Systems for the supply of RadSens-type signal conditioners and OTG-R-type fiber optic temperature sensors. It follows recent approval of these products obtained from the Defence Ordnance Safety Group (DOSG), an organization of the UK Ministry of Defence. It did not specify what these are for, they could be engine monitoring of course.

Opsens says it is a leading developer, manufacturer and supplier of a wide range of fiber optic sensors and associated signal conditioners based on proprietary patent and patent-pending technologies.

See: http://www.opsens.com/PDF/OPSENS_Pressrelease_2007-10-17.pdf http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2007/17/c4861.html http://www.opsens.com/investors.html#anchor_5 Royzee 08:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Tiffie video

Have today added a new clip on Live Video of the Typhoon at Farnborough. Some interesting comments from the test pilot: http://www.livevideo.com/video/27BD498B62764D41954EA5CAA861E404/eurofighter-typhoon-on-airshow.aspx?m_tkc=8088361 Royzee 21:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

ZJ812 and ZJ800

Identifying which Tiffie has done what: Flight mag said two aircraft from 29 Sqn OCU served as a one-versus-one training flight for an 11 Sqn pilot ahead of the unit's formal establishment at Coningsby. ZJ812, a Tranche 1 Block 2 production aircraft, the "opponent" was using an earlier Block 1 aircraft, ZJ800. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/24/213442/eurofighter-typhoon-special-storm-force-training.html Royzee 14:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Stealth Yet Again

Billcj says he "reversion of sourced info". But it's ALL sourced. I have 14 footnotes in 4 paragraphs. There is no part of the article more sourced. However, if there is some statement of fact you doubt, please let me know and I will put in even more references.

NO, I did not use a personal post on a forum web site for a source. I used a magazine article for a magazine that is no longer published, and found TWO copies online for veracity. You can verify this yourself.

Finally, I would like the article locked. I'm tired of sock-puppet games. If you will not lock the article, could we omit all references to stealth whatsoever, as well as any other changes that Mr. sock-puppet wants. The article would at least be peaceful, if not complete. If wikipedia is going to be run by sock-puppets, I'll be happy to spend my time elsewhere. I'm not a newbie (check my contributions) but I'm tired of this.

I call on the admin to settle this.

If your comments are founded in truth, you do a disservice to yourself through your tone - please settle down and let us know what you believe is going on. Please sign your posts. Keep in mind that simply because information is sourced does not mean that it belongs in an article. I'd agree that the stealth issue is a sore spot with regard to this article. In my opinion, I think we ought to leave all stealth information out as it is not a stealth aircraft. What information are you talking about, and who are you accusing of sock-puppetry? Nicholas SL Smith 01:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the user talk page for Akradecki? See the section entitled "Typhoon vs F-22". There has been a person posting from many anonymous IP accounts edit-warring the article. Both Akradecki and BillCJ have been fighting this person. There is significant history here. After all this effort by three people you just remove the text without saying why. If you don't like what I wrote please say why.

I never called the plane stealth. I said they took efforts to reduce the radar cross section, and compared it to planes of both larger and smaller radar cross section.

You did write "In my opinion, I think we ought to leave all stealth information out as it is not a stealth aircraft.". However, that this is probably the last western fighter to be non-stealth and that they sent a ton of money to reduce the RCS and even had some success and why ought to be mentioned. Kitplane01 03:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the basis for including this information - it is misleading. How much money and effort was spent making this aircraft less observable? This may very well be the last non-stealth fighter jet, and if it is, it should be portrayed as such. Low observability information in each of those links was minimal; I read through it and it appears as though a few comments were magnified and combined to portray the Typhoon as a stealthy fighter. The very label of the section indicates that this aircraft is stealthy - it is not. It has low observable features much like the F-14, F-18, F-16, etc... It has been agreed that direct comparisons like this should be avoided (see the F-22 talk page where such a section was just removed.) I publicly conferred with Askari Mark when modifying, who agreed that there was a problem with a major portion of the section.

For the purposes of resolving this - let us discuss on an item by item basis the additions you wish to be included - we can all discuss the validity of the source, the way the addition portrays the aircraft at hand, and whether it is deceptive. Again, I'd like to reassure everyone that I just want an accurate article; I am not labeling any editor's work as poor in quality; I only wish to resolve this issue. Nicholas SL Smith 04:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of putting my head above the parapet, my opinion is that steath WAS a factor in the design, as can be seen by the various design points. The idea to reduce radar cross-section was far from unique, or even extensive, but stealth was considered. BAE systems went to some length to point out some of the qualities of the aircraft when software developers approached them while making EF2000. This isn't easily verifiable as these sorts of discussions were far from public, but the resultant extrapolation of the aircraft shape for aerodynamics and radar reflectivity was voluntarily censored to ensure co-operation with BAE so that accuracy could be as good as possible without compromising the EF2000 project itself. Also, The stealthyness of the aircraft cannot be in the same league as some of the other modern aircraft, but as the F22 has optional hardpoints for external weaponry, stealth isn't the ultimate goal anyway.

on a slight aside, The EF2000's mission has changed since the first design, and the UK seemingly needs to have an aircraft that can now engage rogue elements, rather than entire airforces, so the stealth aspect is less important. It is for this reason that i also find the loss of the use of the Mauser cannon incredible. Should a pilot need to quickly down an aircraft they have eyeballed, they will actually need to fly away from it to engage it with missiles at the correct range! How rubbish that there is a perfectly functional cannon being used as ballast.

If there are references explaining any of the points in the article, then they should stand as evidence, with only grammatical changes to how they are described. Removing something anonymously without discussion is IMHO vandalism. I also think that trying to remove sourced items without a VERY good reason is a bit off. As for F22 v EF2000, i think it would be only prudent to arrange for a fly-off. Anyone here got the ear of NATO? Tim 15:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the problems we’re having here arise from the fact that when describing an aircraft as “stealthy” (or not), different people have different ideas of what “stealthy” means – defining it narrowly or broadly. Those who do so broadly consider the employment of “stealth technologies” like reduced-observables configuration shaping, radar-absorbent materials and structures, and other such treatments as making the resulting, more “LO” design “stealthy”. However, adding “stealth technologies” (i.e., signature-reduction techniques) to an aircraft doesn’t necessarily make it a fully “stealthy” aircraft; it simply provides it with a “reduced signature”. Even if the Typhoon’s frontal sector RCS were roughly the same as that for the F-22, that would not make the Typhoon “stealthy”, per se; the F-22, having been designed to be a stealthy fighter, has all-aspect LO qualities. Indeed, when certain aircraft are called “stealthy” – like the B-2 ‘Stealth Bomber’ and the F-117 ‘Stealth Fighter’ – they are focusing on the fact that those particular aircraft that were fundamentally designed to be “stealthy” and not just with lowered RCS (or other observables). If there is one fundamental way to reliably define an aircraft as “stealthy”, then it is whether it can carry an operationally useful payload internally. This is a sine qua non for stealthy operations because anything hung externally will significantly increase the radar signature. I would suggest that instead of calling the section “Stealth”, we simply call it instead something like “Signature-reduction features” or something along that line. At the time the EF 2000 was being designed, reduced frontal-aspect signature was a basic design requirement and so it very much should be discussed here. Considering how air-to-air engagements typically occur, getting an LO frontal-aspect signature is, well, maybe a 60% solution – and that in of itself quite valuable. Many of these “stealth/signature-reduction” technologies are now regularly retrofitted on much older designs (such as the MiG-21) for that very reason. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I would also agree to change the name of the section to signiature reduction. The phrase "stealth" has different meanings to the general public than it does militarily. If the section is to be called "Stealth", then it should also include specific references to the lack of other stealth charactaristics. It may be that Military Aircraft should have a specific template as the vehicles in any of the Jane's encyclopaedias do. That may also make comparing aircraft easier. I dont think the content of this article is misleading though, it is just incomplete. Can anyone put something in about the lack of IR reduction? (i dont count supercruise as stealth, that to me is a fuel saving measure). Also the lack of RAMs and stealthy body shaping. There must be some good reference out there. I would be interested to know how stealthy an F22 pilot is, given his position within the fuselage. The changes to the helmet seem a given, but there is a lot of exposure in both the F22 and EF2000 cockpit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdsplodge (talk • contribs) 08:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, supercruise belongs to stealth! Not only fuel consumption, noise and RCS reduction! The afterburner plume increase your RCS! The very strong ion density dependency on maximum gas temperature quickly leads to the conclusion that the radar return from the jet wake of an engine running in dry power is insignificant, while that from an afterburning wake could be dominant. An Eurofighter, F-22, F-35, etc is not stealht when the afterburner is in use! What lack of RAM? The Typhoon use RAM and RAS. The inlets are non rectangular and intern re-entrant triangles are outside invesible! The canard is much smaller as the horizontal stabilizer at the F-22. The Eurofighter is smaller in the visual shape. The AMRAAM are semi regressed. The Sidwinder 9X need 10 to 15 sec for acquisition time and the F-22 has no HMS! For more than 15 sec is the door open. The 61A2 need 1/2 second startup time for the first shot, in this first 1/2 second deliver the Mauser 2kg rounds. --90.187.187.203 10:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that supercruise does have some part in the stealth role, but this is not its sole purpose. It plays a part in changing the mission profiles, allowing for extended range without major compromises in speed or fuel consumption, so it is an allround improvement to the engine design for a multitude of reasons. The case of RAMs and shaping is also a lot weaker for the Typhoon, though not non-existant, they are definately compromised for cost/performance/maintenance reasons. From a pure stealth point of view, the Typhoon is not really designed that way, and i would also say that the F22 does it better, but all these things come at a cost. I hear what you are saying about the other general points, apart from the mauser thing. The UK version of the Typhoon has no support for the gun. It won't be usable even when it's mounted in the aircraft, so the reliance on missiles changes a close visual encounter into a more tactical situation. Acquisition time is one aspect, proximity being another. You cant shoot a plane down with a missile if it is only fifty feet away from you. I am a big fan of the plane, but facts are facts. The EF2000 is a consortium designed multirole fighter with a relatively low price tag for its performance. Unlike the US Government, most European nations do not have bottomless pockets so we compromise on any number of things to get the job done, but put an EF2000 against an F22 and there is not that much to chose from at the end of the day. Wikipedia can get a bit too anal for its own good sometimes, so call the section stealth, signiature reduction, Creep-up-on-you factor... whatever as long as the descriptions are valid, sourced and relevent in context.Tim 16:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only RCS reduction and fuelconsumption, IR and noise reduction. UK has the Mauser since 2006 in use. The decision follows experience in Afghanistan showing that guns are still one of the most effective weapons when supporting ground troops. Fifty feet away need you non cannon, its called Kamikaze! --90.186.63.111 17:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

F-22 reward visibility sacrificed for stealth.

Stealth means the proper suppression of all its important “signatures”—Visual Signature, Radar Signature, Infrared Signature, Electromagnetic Emissions, and Sound.

Visually—The F–22, one of the world’s largest, most identifiable fighters, cannot hide in daylight. Its role is in daylight. Stealth operations are night operations. Unfortunately stealth against radar invariably increases the size of a fighter making it more visible.

The radar signature is utterly inadequately reported. Only a single data number is provided to congressional committees and the GAO—the average radar signature in the level forward direction within 20 degrees of the nose, presumably to enemy fighter radars. In the B-1B reporting fiasco, the 100/1 signature advantage over the B-52 became a real 1.8/1. One cannot design an aircraft to simultaneously hide from low and medium frequency ground radars and from high frequency airborne fighter radars. Properly, all the data should be portrayed and reported—for all azimuths, for all “latitudes,” and for all radar frequencies. Single data points constitute lying by omission and gross incompleteness.

The temperature increases of supersonic cruising flights make the F-22s beacons in the sky to infrared sensors.--90.186.189.208 18:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but it is merely your opinion. No offense, but your opinion and arguments are irrelevent. The only thing that matters at Wikipedia is what the external sources say. This isn't a forum or fan site, and it is simply not the place to debate, with one's own opinions, the merits (or lack thereof) of stealth or any other characteristic of the aircraft. Cite sources! AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Eurofighter Typhoon and James May at 3:17--90.186.189.208 20:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

YouTube is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia.

Over ten year old books are not a very reliable source.--90.187.187.203 11:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the matter being cited and on whether newer, more up-to-date sources can be found. Looking for truth or accuracy on YouTube is like looking for the same in the National Enquirer. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a UK BBC broadcast and not an US ABC broadcast Is the world flat?--90.186.87.180 18:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

“Stealth”, for better or worse, has come to be associated primarily with radar signatures. What the anon IP is talking about is called “multi-spectral” or “full” stealth. Since we will never have the RCS map for any airplane, there’s not much we can say about it other than the few scraps of comparisons that get bandied about – and the same applies for what can be found about signature reduction characteristics in other frequencies. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Stealth technology is a sub-discipline of electronic countermeasures which covers a range of techniques used with aircraft, ships and missiles, in order to make them less visible to radar, infrared and other detection methods.--90.186.87.180 18:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I highly support the proposal to call the section with this article dealing with features which lower this aircraft's observability as "Signature-reduction features". I believe this will lower drastically is not eliminate any possibility for a reader to become confused and believe that this Typhoon is in fact a stealth aircraft. 90.186.189.208, I'm not entirely sure that this is necessarily true, and it certainly doesn't appear to be backed up by any well accepted or documented definition of Stealth.

Including information in one of the Stealth articles about the interplay and trade-offs between stealth and maneuverability would be more than appropriate, and may benefit the research community at large.

An Example: I can't help but see a section labeled "stealth" in this article akin to adding a section to the Honda Accord article labeled as "high performance"; the Honda Accord was designed to be a good car, and thought was put into designing it to be a high performance car (high compression ratio, variable timing and valve control, modern suspension, etc...), but the Honda Accord is not high performance at all compared to modern exotic cars. It is simply a very good, very popular car. Any representation otherwise would be misleading. The same example can be applied to many machines, and is true about this incredibly agile flying one. Nicholas SL Smith 05:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's a good equivalent example. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Belive should we only on Sundays in the church! Neither "approximately" or "maybe" or "estimated" are encyclopedic! An Example: The F-117 had higher loss rate than the F-16 in the Serbian air war. 2 F-117 hit from 1950s technology, 1 total loss and 1 out of action! --90.186.142.183 07:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of 90.186.142.183's last comment was. All of the above terms quoted are acceptable in academic or encyclopedic articles when properly backed up. Maybe you intended the example for the F-117 article? You made no analogy, only a statement with no explanation. At any rate, I have beliefs about what is appropriate for inclusion in an article such as this, and a "Stealth" section is not for the reasons stated above. Nicholas SL Smith 15:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What to do about Stealth

It looks like there are several out there who believe that information about stealthy aspects of this aircraft ought to be included in the article. I agree that information about all unique design aspects of this aircraft ought to be included too - we just need to figure out an unbiased to convey this information. Does anyone object to the use of the title "Signature-reduction features?" It is accurate, to the point, and makes no representations other than that the contents of the section thusly titled detail features which reduce signature. Nicholas SL Smith 04:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Kitplane took care of this - and added a bunch more info - but I don't see it as misleading - any thoughts? Nicholas SL Smith 01:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Kit's doing a fine job. It can use some polishing, but he's adding the right points in the right way and sourcing them properly. Kudos! Askari Mark (Talk) 02:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

How can you say Kudos when all of his citation derive from one suspect source, the Eurofighter Consortium publicity website. Even the citations when relevant (64 is not) are based on a globalsecurity.org article that uses the same Eurofighter publcity website for it's source. This is a joke.Philbaaker —Preceding comment was added at 05:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it's much better than what went before. If you have better sources, you're welcome to add them. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed better than what preceded it - and it can always be improved. I doubt the Eurofighter Consortium is spreading mis-information about the Eurofighter. They are in the best position to convey accurate information about the product. Who else would know more? We probably still ought to be careful when taking information from such pages as to not incorporate puffery or qualitative representations, but Kitplane doesn't appear to have done this. Nicholas SL Smith 23:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Eurofighter Propaganda

"The Eurofighter consortium claims their fighter has a larger sustained subsonic turn rate, sustained supersonic turn rate, and faster acceleration at 0.9 at 20,000 feet than the F-15, F-16, F-18, Mirage 2000, Rafale, the Su-27, and the MiG-29" Since when does a marketing claim make it into an encyclopedia? It's not allowed on the F-22 page so wht here? The same goes for Kitplanes stealth additions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philbaaker (talk • contribs) 06:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I see WZ from Reston has been hanging around again. - BillCJ 06:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A claim that is measureable (turn rates are evaluated during flight test, and are a very important measure of performance) is not propoganda, it's a factual evaluation. Just because the source is the manufacturer's website is irrelevent. We often take specs and performance figures from manufacturers' websites. The way the info is presented ("claims" rather than stating that as pure fact) makes this completely acceptable material for the article. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It`s not only propaganda, 2004 in british airspace in a simulated fight a british Eurofighter shot down two american F-15. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.186.50.33 (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Tranche 2 Avionics Now in Flight Test

On November 1 first Eurofighter Typhoon with Tranche 2 avionics took to the air at BAE Systems' Warton facility. Instrumented Production Aircraft Six (IPA6) completed its maiden flight under the control of Mark Bowman, Eurofighter Typhoon test pilot at BAE Systems.

The press release said that IPA6's first prominent task will be to accomplish Type Acceptance for Block 8, the first capability standard of the second Tranche Typhoon, in April 2008. While IPA6 (BS031) is essentially a Tranche 1 standard aircraft, it uses the full Tranche 2 mission computer suite and avionics features. IPA7 (GS029) is the first aircraft that represents the full Tranche 2 build standard. The first flight of IPA7 is expected before the end of 2007 at the Manching site of EADS, Germany. See: http://www.eurofighter.com/news/20071101_ipa6.asp

Royzee 10:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

BAE Is Talking With 10 Countries About Eurofighter

At the time of the Dubai Airshow, reports were coming out of BAE Systems Plc saying it was in talks with at least ten countries about selling Eurofighter Typhoon. It includes several possible buyers in the Middle East, Simon Keith, BAE's MD for the region, said in an interview. See: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=a6mOay2gxNVE&refer=uk Royzee 13:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

LDP trial success

On 12 November 2007 the Eurofighter Typhoon Combined Test Team (CTT), comprising staff from BAE Systems and the Royal Air Force, successfully completed the first mission to drop a laser guided bomb, scoring a direct hit at the Aberporth range. Ref: http://www.eurofighter.com/po_ln.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the importance attached to the development of Air-to-Ground capability, particularly in the export marker and for the possible deployment of Typhoon in current conflict theatres, this milestone is significant and should be added to the article, unless there are serious objections. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

cost increase

Under Eurofighter_Typhoon#Costs_increases, it currently says: "The cost of the Eurofighter project has increased from original estimates. The cost of the UK's aircraft has increased from £7 billion to £19 billion". What I'm wondering is, where does the £7 come from? The three references cited in this section do not mention such a figure - the closest is one source speaking of an increase from about £17b to £19b. Also, further below it says "the Eurofighter programme compare favourably with that of the F-22 (14% over budget[neutrality disputed] and 54 months late versus 127% over budget and 117 months late)". From £7 to £19 would be far more than the claimed 14%, and even more than the 127% it is said to compare favourably to. Anyone has a definitive reference for the cost increase? --Allefant (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubacc/383/38305.htm

• £19.7 billion - £2.3 billion = £17.4 billion
• 2.3/17.4 = 0.1321 0.1321*100=13.21%--HDP (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, looks right now. --Allefant (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Typhoon repair deal

Towards the end of November BAe Systems announced the receipt of a maintenance contract from the UK MOD for Typhoon. The contract, worth 11.6 mln stg is to provide repair services on certain Typhoon aircraft components. The components in the first incremental package include the nose radome, windscreen and canopy assembly; repairs will be done at RAF Coningsby involving RAF and BAE staff. It is to run to the end of 2014 and is the first in a series of four partnered support contracts for a total value of ca. 227 mln stg. Royzee (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe more Typhoons for Saudi Arabia

A possible order for additionally 24 Eurofighters--HDP (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sustained turn rate

Specific performance parameters such as acceleration and turn rate at a given altitude and speed are not made public. You will not find numbers like that in the public domain for the vast majority of combat aircraft. The claim made by the Eurofighter website that it out turns specific aircraft at M0.9 is very suspect. More so given the fact that the actual numbers are not given and there really is no way for Eurofighter to know them.70.18.10.6 (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Germany was owner of Su-27 and MiG-29. And the MiG-29 is a well known F-16 and F-15 killer. Spain EADS CASA F-18, Dassault is a part of EADS. And F-15 is only a 3th generation oldtimer fighter with positive stability and is not very agile. The F-16 is was frequently flown by the EADS.--90.186.80.148 (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If Typhoon did not have a huge turning advantage over F-16 then I would have to ask why. With much lower wing loading and higher excessive power, it should be a better performer all around. 311kg/m2 Typhoon, 411kg/m2 F-16 and 358 kg/m² F-15 --HDP (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense HDP, your theory is just that, theory. There is more to sustained turning than just wing loading. Second even if wing loading and power where the only factors in determining turn rate then you need to take into account the fact that both jets F-16 and F-15 can and do often have higher thrust engines than the PW-FW 100s from which those numbers above where derived. Last what is the specific power output of each engine at a given altitude and temperature? You are looking at sea level thrust. You are also not taking into account the size of the control surfaces as well as the wing efificency at a given altitude and speed.141.155.134.177 (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Theory and opinion has no place here. We report what the references say, and it is inappropriate for an IP editor, or any editor for that matter, to remove material that is cited (in this case, the paragraph has two different citations). As it is abundantly clear that the Wikzilla sock is going to continue putting his personal opinion and personal analysis above the cited refs, and is going to continue to edit war, this page is now s-protected as well. To the IP editor: you clearly have no regard for how we do things around here, and you clearly think that your own opinion is the only correct one, therefore I have no choice but to keep you from edit warring with the rest of the community. If you have a cite that contradicts the existing one, that's a whole different matter, but as it stands now, we have your opinion versus two refs, and you lose. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And now a third reference. --HDP (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep kidding yourself. Thats the fanboy site you are using for your third "reference". You people are clueless. Goodbye.70.107.178.89 (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

An industry site a "fanboy" site? Hardly. Oh, if only I could believe your "goodbye"! AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Actually eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk seems to be an unoffical site, but eurofighter.com is definetely official.-Fnlayson (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree...I didn't mean that industry=official, but it's a far cry from a fan-boy site, more like an industry news site. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• OK. Yes, definitely not a fanboy site. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Somtimes size counts, therfore has the Typhoon canards (working in undisturbed air) and flaperons for symetric pitchtcontrol, the longer lever arm! The F-15 has no leading-edge maneuvering flaps, and has no negative stability (MAC is positiv). The lack of the second pitch control caused a greater AoA in turning and bleed more energy in turns, with conventional tail or tailless Delta. With Mach 1.5 a curve diameter can be flown by 6 km without losing speed, that is ~6.6g for the Typhoon. The static margin of F-16 is -5%=MAC, and it will loss its negative stability at the speed of 1.0 Mach. The static margin of the Typhoon is -35%=MAC, and it won't loss its instability until reaching the speed of more than 1.4 Mach. Lower static margins indicate less static stability and greater elevator authority. Source: Janes, BAE, NASA...--HDP (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

metre vs meters

I noticed inconsistency in use of units in one para:

According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than it required. Comments from BAE Systems suggest the radar return is around four times less than the Tornado it replaces[74]. No official figure are available, but the Eurofighter is understood to have an RCS under one square metre."[71] This compares with the estimated RCS of the Rafale of 2 square meters, and the estimated RCS of the American F-117 of 0.025 square meters.[75] Note that when the Typhoon or Rafale are carrying external stores, the stores themselves might have a radar cross section of two square meters, more than the aircraft itself from the frontal aspect.[76]

IMO it should be metre or metres

and be consistent on use of number or word: 1 or one

Royzee (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's a European plane. Measurments should be given first in metres and then Imperial measure. Downtrip (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - the only meters on a Typhoon will be air speed, hydraulic pressure etc. Two nations divided by a common language. Springnuts (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Like most fast jets, Eurofighter uses knots for airspeed and Bar for pressure! But I know what you mean. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for added Categories

Please, when this article can again be updated, will somebody add Category:Multiple engine aircraft, and Category:Low wing aircraft ? Thanks in advance. Raymondwinn (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Av Week report : Typhoon Runs Out Of Wind in Denmark and Norway

Dunno if you have seen this but there's a news update on Av Week WS called 'Typhoon Runs Out Of Wind in Denmark and Norway'.

Douglas Barrie says how Eurofighter has 'halted its efforts to try to sell the Typhoon to Denmark and Norway'.

IMHO this is a mistake they will regret.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/EURO12207.xml&headline=Typhoon%20Runs%20Out%20Of%20Wind%20in%20Denmark%20and%20Norway&channel=defense

Royzee (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have read it, but its not as simple as this. The story (in my own words, with no links to sources, since not in english) is that the race looks fixed in advance, so its not a real competition, and if JSF is already chosen by certain politicians, Eurofighter GMBH is just wasting ressources on participation in a run, where the winner is already picked. The danish goverment have been "donating money" for the JSF project, and the requirement for Typhoon and Gripen are much higher than for JSF, read comment from griphen today. This is why Eurofighter group pulled out of the race, they belive they are just wasting their time. In demark, the largest company is the container/oil company Maersk, which has close connections to the US defence department, as logistic partner e.g Iraq, and Terma, the only real danish aerospace company (owned by maersk) support JSF in public several times, because they have been promised buy back orders from the JSF program (both Terma and Maersk). Mearsk have alot to say in Denmark, and eurofighter gmbh may have a valid point, the race does look fixed. --Financialmodel (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

repaired blisk from a low-pressure turbine of the Eurofighter's EJ200 engine

According to MTU Aero Engines: Germany's leading engine manufacturer, it has become the first company worldwide to repair a component by patching, hand it over to the customer and obtain EASA approval for the innovative repair technique.

A press release states that in December, 2007, a repaired blisk from a low-pressure turbine of the Eurofighter's EJ200 engine was delivered to the National Quality Assurance Office for aviation equipment. http://www.mtu.de/en/press/actual_news/news1/index.html

Royzee (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that this really belongs here - perhaps in the EJ200 article?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(my) Reseach on F-22 Vs. Typhoon

Regarding another story about F-22 vs. Eurofighter i really do think the IAPR story should somehow be included in the article, though perhaps rewritten a bit, so it just refer to the source as internatinal AIR POWER REVIEW and say they claimed "......", in my eyes this should be enough, and all can read, its questionable, but at the same time see that such a thing has been reported, and who it was reported by. [7]

• On 10 June 2005 eurofighter.com (Eurofighter GmbH) reported:

In early 2005, Eurofighter Typhoon made its first transatlantic deployment. Under the 'Exercise High Rider' nickname, the Air Warfare Centre (AWC) conducts routine trials work on the United States western ranges, taking advantage of significant overland airspace, good weather and instrumented range infrastructure to maximise operational test and evaluation output from these facilities.

Exercise High Rider 10 took place at the United States Naval Air Weapons Range China Lake in California. Taking part in the deployment were the Harrier GR7 and Tornado GR4 aircraft of the AWC's Fast Jet and Weapons Operational Evaluation Unit (FJWOEU) based at RAF Coningsby and a Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft from the Typhoon combined test team.

The aircraft was deployed from BAE Systems Warton, crewed by a BAE Systems test pilot and a Typhoon Operational Evaluation Unit (OEU)17(R) Squadron pilot. BT005, a twin-seat series production aircraft, made the transatlantic crossing with the help of RAF VC10 and Tristar refuelling assets, before conducting an unaccompanied transit across the USA from Bangor Maine to China Lake, stopping to refuel at Little Rock Arkansas and Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico. The Eurofighter Typhoon began flying again immediately after its arrival undertaking trials work to evaluate the aircraft's weapon system in an operational environment.

Exercise High Rider 10 recovered to the UK at the end of the deployment. [8]

• in 2006, "internatinal AIR POWER REVIEW", (issue 20, 2006, page 45. ISNB: 1-880588-91-9 (casebound) or ISBN: 1473-9917), reported:

"more recently, there have been repeated reports that two RAF Typhoons deployed to the USA for OEU trails work have been flying against the F-22 at NAS China Lake NAWS China Lake, and have peformed better than was expected. There was little suprise that Typhoon, with its world-class agility and high off-boresight missile capability was able to dominate "Within Visual Range" flight, but the aircraft did cause a suprise by getting a radar lock on the F22 at a suprisingly long rate. The F-22s cried off, claiming that they were "unstealthed" anyway, although the next day´s scheduled two vs. two BWR engagement was canceled, and "the USAF decided they didn´t want to play any more .

- When this incident was reported on a website frequented by front-line RAF aircrew a senior RAF officer urged an end to the converstaion on security grounds"

And..........

• On 18 August 2006, the BBC NEWS reported:

"The US Air Force has already begun to take delivery of another superjet, the F-22 Raptor. This is very stealthy but costs twice the price of the Eurofighter, and reports suggest that RAF's Eurofighters have flown highly successful missions against the F-22 during recent exercises in the US" [9] .

- Perhaps you have been told that the F-22 is a stealth aircraft, and that this makes the F-22 invisible to radar, so from this you conclude that "AIPR" and "BBC World" must be lying about the Typhoon being able to track the F-22? But it is old news that the Typhoon was meant to be able to track stealth, just read BBC world long before this incident ever happened. On December 22, 1997 BBC world report:

"Eurofighter has the world's most advanced radar for long-range detection and acquisition of targets both in the air and on the ground. Known as the ECR90, it is developed by GEC-Ferranti and will allow pilots to detect and track numerous targets simultaneously and then to fire at enemy aircraft well beyond visual range.

The aircraft is also equipped with an infra-red search and track system which will enable pilots to spot the enemy by detecting minute differences in temperature between the target and its background, making "stealth" aircraft visible.

As it is a passive system, it can operate without giving the aircraft's position away to the enemy."[10]

- The F-22 might be shapped to reduce its radar cross-section, but it still use a lot of energy, and what do you think comes out of the back of an F-22 then? Heat? You simply cant hide such consumption of energy, and this is how the Typhoon has always been build to track stealth aircraft, old news.

• On 24 April 2007 Flightglobal (Flight International) reported:

"The RAF's 17 Sqn OEU has routinely deployed two aircraft and around 30 personnel to the USA to operate alongside US fighters including the Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor. "The vast majority of this work is about making sure that the integration of the two platforms is working," says Walker. Asked how the fighters compare, he says: "If you want to say that stealth is a determining factor then Typhoon stands second to the F-22. But I think that as we do more work, the Typhoon will more than hold its own. It's the balance of how you use it, rather than what it is."BAE Typhoon project test pilot Mark Bowman sees even less of a capability gap. "The F-22 is three times the cost, but you would struggle to see any advantage in the cockpit design - the cost is there to maintain stealth," he says. "Typhoon is most likely equivalent, if not better. Upcoming commitments for the UK Typhoon force include involvement in a UK combined qualified weapons instructor course and possible participation in a Red Flag exercise in the USA. "We want to integrate with a multinational package and are always looking for a way to challenge the aircraft and the pilots," says Atha" [11]

--Financialmodel (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

More to be checked:

Air Forces Monthly - January 2007" is quoted saying (this one I would like help to be checked, I have only read references to it):

"During the Typhoon's visit to the US in 2005 it was pitted againt the F-22, this was not officially confirmed. The Typhoon could not see the F-22 but could detect that it was being painted by the F-22 and took "appropriate" measures with defensive aids. In one on one combat the Typhoon did the same job as on the Su-30, the F-22 could not handle the Typhoons close in and were shocked. It did not go all the Typhoon's way but the Americans had a sobering encounter, with the F-22 sacrificing much for stealth"

and

Aviation Week & Space Technology - 10/03/2005, page 23:

Unconfirmed reports--that is, rumors-- making the rounds in European aerospace industry circles contend that Royal Air Force Eurofighter Typhoons, temporarily operating from Nellis AFB, Nev., were able to pick up U.S. Air Force F/A-22s on their radars, stealth notwithstanding.

Similar reports appeared during the 1991 Iraq war concerning the ability of British ships, using large radar arrays, to detect the F-117 and, in later conflicts, the B-2. U.S. officials confirm that the Typhoons were at Nellis to fly with the 422nd Test & Evaluation Sqdn.

However, they discount that the Typhoons had seen an F/A-22 in full-configuration stealth.

First, they say, the Typhoons and F/A-22s were never in the air at the same time. Second, the F/A-22s always have an enhanced signature for positive air control, except when they go to war or when the range has been cleared for F/A-22-only operations"

--Financialmodel (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In short, the Eurofighter Typhoon in USA 2005 on 'Exercise High Rider' was deployed from BAE Systems Warton, crewed by a BAE Systems test pilotand a Typhoon Operational Evaluation Unit 17(R) Squadron pilot (its a two seater trainer). Mark Bowman, who said The F-22 is three times the cost, but you would struggle to see any advantage in the cockpit design - the cost is there to maintain stealth," and "Typhoon is most likely equivalent, if not better" is a BAE Systems test pilot from BAE Systems Warton. Now perhaps you can understand why Mark Bowman, the Eurofighter testpilot, isnt impressed by the F-22 [12].--Financialmodel (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? That a BAE pilot's analysis needs to be taken with a pinch of salt? That's obvious. You're welcome to spend your time whatever way you want, but might I suggest being bold in updating the article and not explaining things in such detail here? Mark83 (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What the point in updating the article, if all you update is deleted within minutes? A mechanical engineer working in the US aerospace industry in Huntsville, AL, USA deleted my last input. (Look in the topic/section above this one e.g.) --Financialmodel (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, appreciate you making a case here. While there's a place for being bold, there's also a place for making a case and discussing proposed edits. You have clear sources which are non-trivial and which are verifiable, therefore it seems to me that you've met the intent of the policies. I would suggest that, out of respect for the community, that you give it a couple of days for folks to see your proposals, consider them, and discuss them, but after that, I can't see why you'd be reverted. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Myself and another editor deleted the incident reported by the Scotsman. Much of this has been discussed before (see the archive page). Verification was asked for on some questionable things by multiple users and I don't think that's been provided yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer if you didnt change my words above Fnlayson, I wrote "a mechanical engineer working in the US aerospace industry in Huntsville, AL, USA deleted my last input" not "Fnlayson deleted my last input", so i prefer if my words stay as they were written. Thanks in advance. --Financialmodel (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• What's your problem? Why can't you just use my user name like most people would? -Fnlayson (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• My problem is that someone edit my words in the talk section, now 3 times in 5 minutes. I refused to have an editwar with you in the article, so i went here to present my case, but now i have an editwar with you on my own words here on the talk-page. I dont change your words, so please dont change mine. --Financialmodel (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you add NPOV, sourced material, I for one will back you up if someone starts reverting. Many others will too. Mark83 (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed my personal info to my user name twice. There was no reason for that except to try make me looked biased or something. But whatever.. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• EADS has numerous facilities in the USA, including in Alabama. Why make the assumption that Jeff works for an American company? It really doesn't matter except as an attempt to discredit him, and is beneath a serious discussion. - BillCJ (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) This whole effort to insert a non-notable anecdote, sourced or not, smacks of WP:POINT to me. The primary user advocating its inclusion is also complaining of biases in the F-22 Raptor article, and this item is just the kind of thing that would make the article seem pro-Typhoon.

Legitimate questions of the story and facts surrounding it aside, why should this be here? Is every non-combat encounter between fighters notable? What in this encounter sets it apart from the many others that occur every year? Is this the only encounter between a Typhoon and a USAF (or any onter nation's AF) fighter aircraft? Where the pilots involved notable in some way? Does this really belong in "Operational history", or even any other section of an aircraft article other than trivia? What does it prove, especially as no attempt to provide the Eagle pilots' perspective has even been made? Was the encounter part of some organized training or adversary activity, such as Red FLag, which might possible confer notability? I'm sure there are other questions that could be asked regarding notability, but I trust that these are enough to make my point to the more-experienced editors here.

Wikipedia not a newspaper or aviation magazine, but an encyclopedia. We don't have to publish every minor encounter just because it was reported somewhere. If such info is in the F-22 article, it should be removed also, if it is just as non-notable. If it's notability can be asserted by reliable sources, then include it. But at this point, the brief anecdote reported in the newspaper fails that test. - BillCJ (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Was it you who merged the F-15 and the F-22 Reseach BillCJ? Keep them seperated unless you try to create one big mess, please. You start talking about eagle pilots here under the "F-22 vs. Typhoon research", and then you start talking about whether it was part of "redflag", when it clearly states from the sources the Typhoon in USA was part of OEU trails, Typhoon Operational Evaluation Unit.

--Financialmodel (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• BillC said: "Does this really belong in "Operational history" - yes, I would argue information regarding the Typhoon Operational Evaluation Unit testing the Typhoon vs. the F-22 in 2005, belong under "Operational history". --Financialmodel (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Could you please stop trying to merge the F-22 vs. Typhoon research into other subject BillC, you will mess up discussions, and clearly you wouldnt want to do that on purpose?--Financialmodel (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has not been reached here, it's typical that the discussion remain in place for about a week before a call for a vote. That has not taken place. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

I will revert it since this has all been discussed before and is nothing more than rumor.141.157.252.153 (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What does Mark Bowman know about the F-22 cockpit? Does he fly the jet? Does he really know how the two compare or did hre just get a courtesy look in the cockpit. Sounds to me like Mark Bowman is a good employee and is talking up his airplane. In short his comments should be taken with a grain of salt. As for your other "research", this has been gone over ad nuaseum. It is unsubstantiated rumor mad by "unknown" sources.141.157.252.153 (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• - Funny how you continue to call it a romour, no matter what sources confirm it, but im sure it hasnt got anything with you beeing from United States. The IAPR have claimed all the time the Typhoon which tracked the F-22 was part of OEU trails, High rider 10 OEU trails was announced long before IAPR ever reported on it, the fact that Typhoons have been over there is no romour. The fact that two typhoons have been there (as descriped by IAPR) is also backed up by Flight International in 2007, which states "The RAF's 17 Sqn OEU has routinely deployed two aircraft and around 30 personnel to the USA to operate alongside US fighters including the Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor. The vast majority of this work is about making sure that the integration of the two platforms is working". The IP says this: "Does he really know how the two compare or did hre just get a courtesy look in the cockpit.".....Do you think you send 2 typhoons and 30 personel to integrate the two platforms by having a "courtesy look" in the cockpit? No wonder you continue to call it a "rumor", when you fail to read sources, even when spoonfed to you...--Financialmodel (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly Financialmodel I fail to see your point. This is an encyclopedia. Whether true or not what value does adding exercise reports and chance encounters bring to this? Where is the value? Further, why do you keep bringing up where people come from? I have no idea where you come from and you are only fooling yourself if you think you know where I come from. You see, there really is no point in adding in anecdotal stories since it proves nothing if you don;t know all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter. A few years ago there was a picture of an F-22 in the gun sight of an F/A-18 going around the Internet. So what? It's meaningless. Unless you can come up with some reason to include this stuff other than it allegedly happened I see no point in including it.Downtrip (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is an encyclopedia about the Eurofighter, as if noone here knew, and people come here to read about the Eurofigter. This is not an article about the "battle of trafalgar", where the history books are already written, this is an article about a brand new fighter, and its history is developing as we speak. Sure we write about the historic cost, development history, and so on, but unlike old encyclopedia's, where the information was never updated when new information appeared, an online encyclopedia as WIKI should be updated when new information about the relevant topic appear. And this is what has happened. National newspapers report the Typhoon was chased by two F-15's, but managed to outmanouvre them and get a lock on them instead. Would readers be interested in such an "historic" event? I beleive they would, and added this source to this article, but it was deleted by 2 persons here, an IP, which is from New York, USA, and by Fnlayson, a mechanical engineer working in the US aerospace industry in Huntsville, AL, USA. Is it a coincidence, that it happens to be Americans that repeatedly deleted an added source from a European national newspaper? Perhaps, perhaps not, but it seems we have a patern here. Also we have several sources that reported that the Typhoon have done well against the F-22, which is regarded the top US fighter. Is this relevant and should this be included in an article about the Typhoon? Again i think it would be relevant, but again some argue its not relevant and should be deleted/removed from here. What are their arguments?

The IP from NY, USA says: "I will revert it since this has all been discussed before and is nothing more than rumor". So no matter how many sources report on this, he refuse to beleive the Typhoon was ever in USA, and that the Typhoon could ever have had a lock on the F-22, and he says he will revert it. In short, he says Eurofighter GmbH, AIPR, BBC World, Flight International, cannot be used as sources, and no matter what he will revert it. In short a veto by an IP. Now that a lot of power for an IP, why did i ever bother to register?

BillCJ see the sources, but he respond: "Wikipedia not a newspaper or aviation magazine, but an encyclopedia", as if this is too new information, because it comes from "a newspaper or aviation magazine"? I'm sure BillCJ dont want this to be added, but his arguments are not rational to me. Again we all know this is an "encyclopedia", but this is an "online encyclopedia", that unlike old printed versions, allow us to keep an article up to date, as new information about a topic appear. Will new relevant information about the Typhoon appear in "a newspaper or aviation magazine" in the future? I think so, but BillCJ imply newspapers, whether national or local, and "aviation magazine" are not sources good enough for wiki, with the repeated argument "Wikipedia not a newspaper or aviation magazine, but an encyclopedia". OK, if this is how WIKI works, I hereby stop my arguments and I will make it my job to look thrugh all WIKI articles and remove all sources from newspapers and magazines, just like BillCJ is doing here. It looks like we have a "clean up" job in front of us, but "luckily its always soo much easier to delete than to add new sources to an article. Thank you my 3 American friends, BillCJ, the IP, and Fnlayson for pointing this out --Financialmodel (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to Financialmodel: The question of notability of the incident was raised and when a contentious (see WP:POV and WP:Fork) issue is involved, then a clear consensus from editors involved in the article is required before the submission is accepted. That has not occured at present, but again, the formal call for a consensus has not been made nor has there been a determined period for discussion (normally a week is sufficient before a final determination is made). Please refer to the process for consensus-building and ask for a vote. There is no reason why your attributed submission is not acceptable if a consensus-driven decision is present. FWIW, throwing up "strawman" arguments is not profitable. Bzuk (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC).

Forget it, refer to Fork, POV etc., and do what you want. I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia that was keept up to date. I know now its a popularity contest, where you just delete what you dont want to read, or where you vote if 2+2=4 or 2+2=5. Lesson learnt, dont do research on a topic and waste your time presenting it on something like Wiki. What you see here is patriotic vandalism by American users, and whether registred or not, the result is the same, censorship of all sources that inform Eurofighter have done well against the F-15 and even the top US fighter, the F-22 --Financialmodel (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So lets see, you failed to give any reason as to why your anecdotal stories given in the third person without ever attributing the claims to a person (such as an RAF or USAF pilot)should be considered relevant, noteworthy or historical enough to be included. Then faced with the fact that you never convinced (never mind ever made an argument as to why these stories should be included)anyone that you are right, you now revert to hiding behind a conspiracy theory that it's those nasty Americans that are responsible for censoring just how wonderful the Eurofighter is. Well my friend that sure is a good way to build credibility where you come from bu not from where I come from. Consider this, exercises and chance encounters are not noteworthy and reveal nothing about a planes capabilities for the following reasons: 1. Training exercises are meant to be learning activities for both sides, not to see which side or equipment is better. 2. Evaluation exercises are meant to evaluate a given aspect of a weapon system under controlled/contrived conditions. 3. Chance encounters are just that, chance encounters which may or may not reflect actual combat conditions. 4. No nation or air force is going to show another all of it's capabilities in an exercise. You keep clinging to your conspiracy theory though.Downtrip (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

An entire series of debatable and questionable assertions have been made in the main article rather than in the discussion "string" of this talk page. Before wholesale changes of a major nature are made, they should be first discussed. In the context of introducting contentious issues, the use of consensus is not only highly recommended, it is imperative to have consensus in order to proceed, regardless of the "bold" guideline. Please reconsider the addition of an entire new controversy into an encyclopedic article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

The fundamental points about these two isses (the F-15 and F-22 encouters) are are they Notable, and are they Verifiable. The F-15 encounter probably passes Verifiability as it has been reported as definately happening by a national newspaper. notability is less certain however - as several other editors have stated, these sort of chance encounters are fairly frequent and a single encounter cannot be used to draw conclusions. The F-22 encounter is probably more notable - bringing into question the performance of Eurofighter against the much vaunted stealthy F-22, but in this case verifability is a problem. While IAPR is normally a reliable source, in the report quoted above, it states that there are "reports " that the incident has taken place - not that the incident has actually happened, as does the BBC report. What needs to be decided is what credence Wikipedia (as an Encyclopeida) should give to these sorts of rumours which are being passed on by a normally reliable source - I'm not sure whether policy is clear on this. In any case this needs to be solved by polite discussion to find a consensus, with eevrybody Assuming Good Faith. Nigel Ish (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Financialmodel has forced the issue. Is there consensus or not to include rumours of chance encounters and exercises taken out of context or not? I think that for all of the reasons above as well as a whole raft of concerns based on whether these encounters even happened or the circumstance under which they happened the whole exercise/chance encounter thing has no place in any encyclopedic article. A good example here is the F-15E "encounter". If the story played out as written the F-15E got the drop on the Eurofighter, and if it where an engagement in real life the EF would have had a missile up it's tailpipe rather than getting lit up by a radar. Further, lets remember they where F-15Es. Pilots who train to be bomber pilots first and fighter pilots second. As you can see without knowing the facts surrounding the encounter you can spin it any way you want. The encounter is meaningless. I could go on. A couple of years back there where pictures all of the net of an F-22 in a Super Hornet's gun sight. Without going into long details it turned out that the only reason why it happened was that they where both flying together in a an air show. So for a lot of reasons (none of which being about nationality) I vote no to include any of this in this or any article.Downtrip (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This article has a lot about the history of the typhoon project, a lot about export, but almost nothing about the real plane and its capabilities, and "fighter history" - If material is added to descripe such, its deleted within seconds. The job should be to improve and expand the article, and not to throw personal vetoes and delete want you dont want to read. Make suggestions on how to improve it instead of deleting it. Anyone can delete, but how many of you can add to this article and improve it? Fell free to suggest other ways to present it, but dont just disregard what several sources report on, simply because you dont like the "message". --Financialmodel (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, it has nothing to do with the message and everything to do with relevance. It's meaningless and this current version is even worse than the last one. There is not much written about the Eurofighter's capabilities because it is still new and there is not much specific known about it. Your entry has absolutely nothing to do about capabilites and there still is no consensus to include it. If you want to add to the article why don't you write something about IRST or how it will get an AESA radar in 2012/13.

I think Finacialmodel has a point. It seems to me that some people think they are the only ones to judge relevance. It is very much relevant how a new aircraft performes compared to other types. But maybe a possible compromise could be to include a link to a new article that is about incidents involving Eurofighter with other aircraft. --Basilicum 21:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not the point, Basilicum. The debate is over whether an unsubstantiated – and possibly unsubstantiable – rumor should be treated with the same weight as solid fact, which is rather contrary to WP:V as far as most everyone but Financialmodel agrees. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I bring this back up but I´ve read this whole discussion and the only thing I´ve read was: The F-22 can´t loose. I dont think that this was a debate anyway. Furthermore I am with Financialmodel in some(!) points. It´s like: Can you die by a bullet? "No?". Maybe ´cause it was written in an european newspaper so we can´t be sure. I think it was in parts patriotic vandalism by American users.

87.166.114.98 (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

PIRATE (Passive Infra-Red Airborne Tracking Equipment), not even mentioned in this article?

How can PIRATE still not be descriped in this article....? There is a huge lag in this article about the Typhoons radars, weapons, defence systems, and how these systems are to be used in combat. The Radars might be shortly descriped, but there is nothing about the Typhoons infrared systems designed to track stealth aircrafts.

Short description (but looking for better sources, to refer to):

The Typhoon will now be equipped with “Pirate”, a passive, infrared search and track system made by a consortium of companies led by Galileo Avionica, a Finmeccanica company. The Pirate (Passive Infra-Red Airborne Tracking Equipment) combines the functions of the FLIR infra-red system (Forward Looking Infra-Red) and of the IRST system (Infra Red Search and Track), able to search, detect and track potential targets. The system operates in a passive mode, without emitting signals which might reveal the aircraft’s presence.

From Thales[13]:

PIRATE gives a passive IRST capability to the Typhoon weapon system for the detection and tracking of air and surface targets as well as providing FLIR imagery for low level flight and navigation during all weather, day or night operations. The PIRATE hardware is housed in a compact single line replaceable unit containing the optical system and signal processing assemblies. This state of the art system gives Eurofighter Typhoon unrivalled IRST capabilities.

PIRATE complements the aircraft's active sensors and data link systems providing greatly enhanced and vital battlespace situational awareness for the Typhoon crew. --Financialmodel (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Who added this part under "Radar signature reduction features":

"Although these measures reduce the radar cross section of the Typhoon, the Typhoon is not a stealth aircraft. For example, the Typhoon does not use internal storage of weapons, which increases its radar cross section but allows for more and larger stores.[73] The Typhoon's current ECR-90 radar is relatively easy to detect when operating, unlike a few more advanced radars.[74]"

- Who ever wrote this probably didnt even know about PIRATE, a passive seach and track system........the quality of this is soo low!--Financialmodel (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

-the headline for this part in the article should be "Sensors", and it should include a detaild description of:

• CAPTOR (ECR 90)
• CAESAR (CAPTOR AESA radar)
• PIRATE (Passive Infra-Red Airborne Track Equipment)

- this article is a mess and require a "clean up", PIRATE has now been added as a random headline, and CAESAR and Captor is descriped under "testing" - the headlind should be "sensors". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Financialmodel (talk • contribs) 18:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Eurofighters weapons not even mentioned?

Article has nothing about its weapons? Find sources this should b included also in article, her is a fast quote to see what should be refered to:[14]

Depending on role, the fighter can carry the following mix of missiles:

• Air-superiority - six BVRAAM (Beyond Visual Range)/AMRAAM air-to-air missiles on semi-recessed fuselage stations and two ASRAAM short-range air-to-air missiles on the outer pylons

• Air interdiction - four AMRAAM, two ASRAAM, two cruise missiles and two Anti-Radar Missiles (ARM)
• SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences) - four AMRAAM, two ASRAAM, six anti-radar missiles
• Multi-role - three AMRAAM, two ASRAAM, two ARM and two GBU-24 Paveway III/IV
• Close air support - four AMRAAM, two ASRAAM, 18 Brimstone anti-armour missiles
• Maritime attack - four AMRAAM, two ASRAAM, six anti-ship missiles

--Financialmodel (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok there is a short description in "armament" in the end, but not detailed enough, it should provide information on what armament it can carry depending on its role. The Typhoon can carry a a lot of different weapons at the same time depending on what role its used in, but its not meanioned in armament as it is now, there is only a short list of what weapons fit. When you add something like this to the article:

The Typhoon's current ECR-90 radar is relatively easy to detect when operating, unlike a few more advanced radars.[76] According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than it required. Comments from BAE Systems suggest the radar return is around four times less than the Tornado it replaces[77]. No official figure are available, but the Eurofighter is understood to have an RCS under one square metre."[71] This compares with the estimated RCS of the Rafale of 2 square meters, and the estimated RCS of the American F-117 of 0.025 square meters.[78] Note that when the Typhoon or Rafale are carrying external stores, the stores themselves might have a radar cross section of two square meters, more than the aircraft itself from the frontal aspect.[79]

....you mention Typhoon carrying external stores increase RCS, and you point is its not a stealth aircraft, but there is no mention of the trade off with stealth and manoeuvrability. If you go for stealth you need a certain shape, and to assume this optimal stealth shape is the same as the optimal shape for manoeuvrability is wrong. The Typhoon was build to focus on manoeuvrability at high speeds, and not stealth as such, though moves have been made to reduce RCS. Because the focus of Typhoon is manoeuvrability and not stealth the Typhoon dont need internal stores, which limits the weapon supply, because of limited room in internal stores. And also its not all weapons that can be used in internal stores. Such details are not mention, the article focus on the problems with "no stealth" of the Typhoon and the fact that expternal weapons increase RCS. There is no mention of the gains from the Typhoon design, which is more weapons, both in quantity and and the different kind of missiles that can be used. --Financialmodel (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Main Gate date

From this ref: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030428/text/30428w15.htm talk of Main Gate (which I put in) is an anachronism, since the process has only existed since 1999: "Mr. Ingram: The Initial and Main Gate approval process has only been in operation within the Ministry of Defence since April 1999, having been introduced as one element of implementation of the Smart Procurement Initiative". Btw "Smart Procurement" - great tag line. Springnuts (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The source I missing is for 1997! This anonymous BBC article is a bad source. Merge AST-403, F/EFA and EFA! Used false or deliberately false assumptions. The 7 billionen from BBC maybe only a typing error or is deliberately false! --HDP (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The BBC are generally considered good sources - and they are not the only source for the 7bn, however they are the best one imo. It would be worth a look at Heseltine's biography which I will try to do sometime. Springnuts (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

First your 7 billionen are out of context! BBC wrote: "Costs rose dramatically during the project and the UK's bill for buying 232 has soared from £7bn to an estimated £15bn." The question is, what kind of price is that? Flyaway or Systemcost? --HDP (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

:I have restored the £7 billion, having found an additional source from a Hansard 1989 debate (so no typing error). As I recall at that stage there were just headline figures bandied about - but I realise my recollection is not a "verifiable source"!! Springnuts (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

At last - I have tracked down the Secretary of State's 1989 statement to parliament that "EFA will be a major project, costing the United Kingdom about £7 billion". The Smoking Gun, I think. I have referenced it in the article. Springnuts (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And again which price is that?! Flyaway or system-cost? You compares apples with pears! --HDP (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Flyaway cost is a per aircraft cost. But what total costs are involved does matter. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• What the SoS said was "EFA will be a major project, costing the United Kingdom about £7 billion, and will provide the RAF with an agile, high performance air defence aircraft." "Will provide" - not "will develop an aircraft which can be bought for so much each to provide...".

But who knows where the SoS got his figure from! From the New York Times, quoting a Reuters news feed, Nov 25 1988 (so did I put the wrong year on the Hansard extract?)

British Aerospace P.L.C. said today that a four-nation consortium of which it is a member had been awarded a contract to develop a new fighter plane. The contract is worth about $10 billion. The contract calls for the development of the aircraft and its armament. It is scheduled to come into service in the air forces of the four countries in the mid-1990's. Britain's Ministry of Defense said Britain would have a 33 percent share of the project"[[15]]

ie £3.3 billion. This is the development cost. Again from the NY Times (I could not find a way into the UK newspaper archives):

"the Europeans put the cost of their fighter at $30 million [each]"[[16]]

so at about 323 aircraft that is £9.7 billion for the actual planes. Now leaving aside the question of what the SoS thought he was talking about when he told the UK parliament that it would cost £7 billion, the two figures would give a total of £13 billion - which is what is given in the "Air Farce One" article.[[17]]. I have seen one fly, and it is very impressive - but at this price tag so it should. Interestingly I saw it in a mock dogfight with a Raptor and ... no, only joking, it was at an air show. Springnuts (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that if we offer values from the 1990s, then we should annotate them with their current equivalent in today’s inflation-adjusted pounds. Even £6 in 1989 bought a lot more than would £6 today. Furthermore, using “then-year” values over a 20-year span makes it look like the rise in the Eurofighter’s cost is much sharper than it really has been.

It is, unfortunately, very difficult to figure out Eurofighter costs (even for Eurofighter, it seems). In 2003, the RAF estimated a “total program cost”, including spares and ground equipment, of £15.4B for 232 aircraft (of which 37 are two-seaters). The same year, the National Audit Office (NAO) came up with £19.6B for the same thing. These equate roughly to “unit [per airplane] production costs” of £66.4 and £84.5, respectively. The NAO’s estimate of the “unit production cost (UPC)” came to £49.1 million in its 2004 report and £64.8 million in its 2005 report. This led to the Eurofighter GmbH filing a Freedom of Information request to clarify just what the NAO was publishing as its “UPC”. According to Eurofighter program director Brian Phillipson, “This leads me to question whether the NAO price is really a Unit Production Cost. My suspicion is that the UK MoD has moved towards a System Cost while still calling it a Unit Production Cost. This £64.8 million figure is much higher than any unit cost, flyaway cost or purchase price that I would recognize.” (Since negotiations were beginning over the configuration and cost of the next tranche, these numbers would certainly be something Eurofighter would be sensitive about.)

It would seem to me that (using the definitions in my essay on aircraft costs), the 2003 values of £66.4 million and £84.5 million would seem to represent optimistic and conservative estimates for the “Unit Procurement Cost”, while the 2004 and 2005 numbers represent a possible move from “Unit Weapon System Cost” (which Phillipson is calling a “Unit Production Cost”) to a “Unit Procurement Cost” (which Phillipson is calling a “System Cost”). Unit Procurement Costs include initial spares, which we know were included in the 2003 estimates – and the 2005 NAO cost is closing in on the optimistic end of that range and traditionally US and British UPCs have been roughly equivalent. The very large increase between the NAO’s numbers in 2004 and 2005, though, make me wonder if the former, £49.1 million, might not have been a “Unit Flyaway Cost (FAC)”; of course, the NAO may have made a more thorough scrub of its estimates, given the criticisms at that time about so many Defence programs suffering serious cost overruns, which naturally brings estimation methodologies into question. In short, I doubt we have access to anything like a reliable FAC for the UK’s aircraft, but the UPC is likely at least £65 million (excluding adjustments for inflation since 2005). Askari Mark (Talk) 04:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Not only inflation, the opting-out (no Euro) and no WKMII and Greatbritain must paiy It, De and Sp in Euro! When Italia and Greatbritain opt out the T3 than must the indemnify (Schadlos halten) Germany and Spain. That mean Greatbritain and Italia eventually pay Germany and Spains Tranche 3 (Then this increased the price for T1 and T2 retroactive and increased the price for T3 direct). Losing working shares in the production (inlusiv the Saudi Eurofighters). This is really a stupid idea. „Die Hürden für einen Ausstieg sind hoch“, sagt Rauen. „Wenn eine Nation aussteigt, muss sie die anderen schadlos halten.“Translation Germany and Spain is EADS.--HDP (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sie haben recht, mein Herr. Considering the frequency with which multi-national programs have experienced “softening commitments”, I would expect that the Eurofighter contracts are very closely written to minimize that risk. However, indemnities are not normally a part of an airplane’s cost figure, but rather a penalty to one partner. This charge would normally be accounted for elsewhere in the national budget an unplanned for expense, although I am uncertain just how the UK or Italy would actually handle it. It’s a rare occurrence between nations. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Could all parties take a long deep breath and follow "cool" dictums. Now that there have been a series of reverts in a 24-hour period, the article will be "locked" in order to prevent a WP:Fork tussle. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

To bad no one has gotten around to locking it yet.Downtrip (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fell free to improve it, but stop deleting sourced material. Everyone can delete articles like you, but how many can improve it? So easy to delete, but noone want to spend time adding new material and find different sources. This article contain almost no information, except some history about the project itself, and some export info, but its no wonder, with all the deletion we see here. It's clearly patriotic vandalism, and its in no interest for this article. --Financialmodel (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, it has nothing to do with the message and everything to do with relevance. It's meaningless and this current version is even worse than the last one. There is not much written about the Eurofighter's capabilities because it is still new and there is not much specific known about it. Your entry has absolutely nothing to do about capabilites and there still is no consensus to include it. If you want to add to the article why don't you write something about IRST or how it will get an AESA radar in 2012/13. You cannot just add things for the sake of adding them. Why not just say it has warp drive, photon torpedoes and a transporterDowntrip (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be said that although the section has some problems, it is sourced. Downtrip has no business blanking it. This isn't an edit war, it is one user vandalizing the article through his deletions. If editors have concerns with the section, they should edit it, check references, re-write what needs revision, but ONLY delete that information which is not covered by a reliable source. Sunray (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sunray, it seems to be another issue altogether. The source material has been questioned as to reliability or authenticity. The introduction of contentious issues that are unsupportable or questionable have to be introduced in the talk page and a formal process for a consensus needs to occur. If these requirements are not met, then it is a case of an editor "pushing" a viewpoint or WP:POV. There is a considerable amount of dialogue already in place in this discussion "string" with many editors providing reasonable advice and offering solutions, none of which seemed to make a difference in the major revision that was instituted. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for clarifying that. I should have looked more closely at the page (and talk page) history. What I saw was an editor deleting sourced material. I realized that the sources might be dodgy, but I should have looked more closely. Sunray (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You havent found one single source questioning AIPR? It's your personal believs that stands in the way, and makes you call an airforce magazine like AIPR biased? This is a higly detailed magazine held by several air forces around the world, and its 45 page story about the Typhoon, is the best out there i have read soo far. Read IAPR before you start bashing it as a source and please link to all former discussions here on wiki about IAPR, and i shall read your argurments there. This is much more than IAPR reporting on this also BBS World, and flight global tells you straight out, with live sources that Typhoon and the F-22 does fly together, and yet you continue to claim this never happened and delete it. This article it fullof mooderators who dont care about this plane can do, but care more about trying to edit the price, and make it look bad compared to other certain planes, its quite obvious:

The RCS of the typhoon is one of the smallest out there, but it is not meant to be a stealth aircraft, beucase a such shape conflict with the shape needed for manoeuvrability, and this is not told i a fair manner, instead of this, this article, article start up by mentioning not stealth, not stealth, craby radars, low RCS, but weapons raise it, so no wonder noone could ever believe the Typhoon could ever track the F-22, you guess failed to mention even basic infrared weapons on the Typhoon, because you care more about deleting material than adding:

Although not a stealth fighter, measures were taken to reduce the Typhoon's radar cross section (RCS), especially from the frontal aspect.[69][70] An example of these measures is that the Typhoon has jet inlets that conceal the front of the jet engine (a strong radar target) from radar. The mean straight areas, such as the wing, canard and fin leading edges, are highly swept, so will reflect radar energy well away from the front sector.[71] Some external weapons are mounted semi-recessed into the aircraft, partially shielding these missiles from incoming radar waves[72]. In addition radar absorbent materials (RAM) developed primarily by EADS/DASA coat many of the most significant reflectors, e.g. the wing leading edges, the intake edges and interior, the rudder surrounds, strakes, etc.[73][74]

Although these measures reduce the radar cross section of the Typhoon, the Typhoon is not a stealth aircraft. For example, the Typhoon does not use internal storage of weapons, which increases its radar cross section but allows for more and larger stores.[75] The Typhoon's current ECR-90 radar is relatively easy to detect when operating, unlike a few more advanced radars.[76]

According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than it required. Comments from BAE Systems suggest the radar return is around four times less than the Tornado it replaces[77]. No official figure are available, but the Eurofighter is understood to have an RCS under one square metre."[71] This compares with the estimated RCS of the Rafale of 2 square meters, and the estimated RCS of the American F-117 of 0.025 square meters.[78] Note that when the Typhoon or Rafale are carrying external stores, the stores themselves might have a radar cross section of two square meters, more than the aircraft itself from the frontal aspect.[79]

- If i am not mistaken this quote included a comparison to the F-22 also last night? IN sort, this article ave soo litle about the Typhoon except some project history and export history, you should focus on adding materail, instead of deleing what others write. 3 Americans, and 1 even in the US aerospace industry, are clearly against this - can Wiki check what contries mooderaters are from, because it seems to be highly relevant here, whether you face it or not. Before we can have a real discussion i would also like to know where Bzuk and Downtrip are from, USA/Europe or other place? I am from Europe, a country here not even related to the Typhoon --Financialmodel (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If you wanted a real discussion about it downtrip you had copied what you deleted to here, instead of just removing it so nobody can see it:

Controversial engagements between the Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-22: (victim of Patriotic vandalism by wiki users)

In 2006 the aerospace/air force magazine "internatinal AIR POWER REVIEW" (IAPR) reported two RAF typhoons had been deployed to USA for OEU trials (Operational Evaluation Unit), and that these Typhoons had been flying against the F-22 at NAS China lake (NAWS China Lake). The magazine reported the Eurofigter Typhoon had performed better than was expected against the US top stealth fighter, the F-22. The magazine wrote that it was no surprise the Typhoon had dominated "Within Visual Range" flight, but the Typhoon had surprised by getting a radar lock on the F-22 at a surprisingly long rate. According to IAPR the F-22’s cried off, claiming they were “unstealthed”, and after this the USAF cancelled the next day’s scheduled two vs. two BWR engagements (Beyond Visual Range).

This report has created a lot of controversy. Critics claim the Typhoon have never been near the F-22’s, but before this, on 27 September 2005, Eurofighter GmbH reported that the Typhoons had made their first transatlantic deployment in 2005, as part of 'Exercise High Rider'. Eurofighter GmbH wrote: "Exercise High Rider 10 took place at the United States Naval Air Weapons Range China Lake in California", which is where IAPR said the engagements had taken place.

On 18 August 2006, the BBC NEWS reported: reports suggest that RAF's Eurofighters have flown highly successful missions against the F-22 during recent exercises in the US", but critics claim BBC World just repeats the AIPR source, which they see as a lie in the first place.

Critics argue there is no way the Typhoons could have been able to track the F-22’s in the first place, since the F-22's have been shaped to reduce their radar cross-section, but such problems have already been described by BBC World on December 22 1997:

“The aircraft is also equipped with an infra-red search and track system (IRST) which will enable pilots to spot the enemy by detecting minute differences in temperature between the target and its background, making "stealth" aircraft visible.

Hardcore critics still argue whether the engagements between the Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-22 have ever happened, but on 24 April 2007 Flightglobal (Flight International) also reported that RAF’s 17 Sqn OEU routinely has deployed two aircraft and around 30 personnel to the USA to operate along US fighters including the F-22. Air Vice Marshal David Walker, air officer commanding 1 Group, which oversees operations of the RAF's strike aircraft fleets, said: “The vast majority of this work is about making sure that the integration of the two platforms is working". Asked how the fighters compare, walker says: "If you want to say that stealth is a determining factor then Typhoon stands second to the F-22. But I think that as we do more work, the Typhoon will more than hold its own. It's the balance of how you use it, rather than what it is”. And to this BAE Typhoon project test pilot Mark Bowman said: "The F-22 is three times the cost, but you would struggle to see any advantage in the cockpit design - the cost is there to maintain stealth, Typhoon is most likely equivalent, if not better.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Financialmodel (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

- It not just reported, though this would be easy with all the sources, instead headline says "controversial", to please the Americans wiki moderators here, though you seem to have no sources to contradict it? Perhaps the official USAF note to the press, saying this never happened? BBC World reported it, but also here it says critics argue its the same report as IAPR, or from IAPR, eventhough i there are no such claims from other than american wiki users here? Have the Typhoon trained with the F-22, yes, you have a direct quote from Air Vice Marshal David Walker, and you know,yes 2 typhoons and 30 personel have been in the US to train with the F-22. Where are the links to former debates on IAPR, because im sure i have seen alot wiki socalled mooderators, saying there isnt even a source this ever took place, well there is now. There is no real arguments for why this should not be included, instead of silly claims from 3 Americans and 2 moods, whose origin is unknow for now, but common for them all is the patriotic vandalism against this article. Unless i see real sources, contradicting all these sources, instead of these silly claims from patriotic Ameirican wiki users, this will be put into article very soon again. 2 years since it was first reported, and yet still not even mentioned here, but just deleted again and again, and put to sleep with a "we need to agreee on this talk", though we all know, there will be no agreement. Stop this patriotec vandalism and the lock on debate afterwards, when you cant even find one single source that contradict these sources, except yourself. --Financialmodel (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I realize you have joined this forum relatively recently, but it may be of use to go over the previous discussions to gain an understanding that this topic is a long-standing one. If you are new to Wikipedia, there is also a need to learn some of the conventions of discourse and discussion. Your constant referral to "vandalism" has to stop. The editors here all have a singular commitment to the creation of a well-researched, well-written encyclopedia. In order to collaborate, all editors are expected to extend a welcome and assume good faith (AGF) in others. Comments such as those expressed above can only be considered ill-considered and disruptive. Please observe the dictum of {AGF} and do not characterize others' opinions or actions. The actions on this page and in the article have already been referred for administrative review. No more additions are necessary until that review takes place. An earlier request to formalize a consensus on a content issue was ignored, please do not ignore this latest request. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

This is well reseached, presented in a way so you can see its still a controversial subject for some, several respected sources have reported on it, i fail to see any sources from any of you here that discredit these sources, except you own personal beleive that it never happened. I have read many of you former discussions with regards to this, and its all about, you doubting on BBC world and IAPR, Flight Global report two typhoons and 30 personal train with F-22, something American wiki-users have said they didnt belive all along. Find me sources to disprove these sources, and not just your own personal believe, and we can add these also, but stop deliting these sources and put a lock on this info, by refering to we have to agree. This is 2 years ago now, and your vandalism with deletion and then refering to disscussion on talk, is clarly a way to put a lock on this, and make sure it will never be descriped which have workedout wll foryou in 2 years now. You have never provided any sources that says this never happened, except you own personal believes. Its patriotic vandalism, and it should stop sooner than later. --Financialmodel (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You cannot prove a negative and trying to say we that it is required is wrong. As for your sources, I find it interesting that only there is no corroborating evidence. I also find it interesting that no one is coming forward to confirm these "sources". Lastly it is interesting that none of these stories have any "legs" in terms of follow up in the media. I can think of a dozen organizations in the US that would have jumped all over these claims if there was a grain of truth to them.Downtrip (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Bzuk said: "I realize you have joined this forum relatively recently" - I have read this for long time without joining the debate, but i have seen how a little group seem to think they have a monopoly on what should be here and what not. One can only wonder why you seem to care so much more about deleting material, than to add new. Again i fail to understand how this article can include such statements as these: "The Typhoon's current ECR-90 radar is relatively easy to detect when operating, unlike a few more advanced radars", and yet nothing on the Typhoons infra red seach and track systems, which is one of the most advanced in the world. Try to focus on adding material than to continue your patriotic vandalism on this article. Find sources that contradict/discredit the above used sources as BBC world, IAPR, Fligt Global if you can, but stop deleting, simply because you as a person fail to/wont believe it. It's patriotic vandalism, and it has been here on this article for 2 years now, with noone commenting on it. Your modus operandi is to to delete it and then lock topic with a discussion you know will never produce an outcome, but this patriotic vandalism stops here--Financialmodel (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You were asked to stop making attacks and claims of vandalism. Do that now. Bzuk (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

It has nothing to do with new material and everything to do with relevant material from reliable sourcesDowntrip (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Who made this change to source?, its a direct change of what was written in the source, article now says:

• "but the Typhoon had surprised the F-22s by getting a radar lock for a surprisingly long period of time."

This is not what IAPR wrote, which admin/wiki user changed this very important statement from distance to time? IAPR wrote:

• " the aircraft did cause a suprise by getting a radar lock on the F22 at a suprisingly long rate. The F-22s cried off, claiming that they were "unstealthed" anyway, although the next day´s scheduled two vs. two BWR engagement was canceled"--Financialmodel (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That just another example of this patriotc vandalism we continue to see here, even when article is under observation. You cant delete the information now so instead, you will change statements from "radar lock on the F22 at a suprisingly long rate", to "radar lock for a surprisingly long period of time", why, because a radar lock on the F-22 on a long range would question the whole stealh principle of the F-22, which is now refered to as the invisible fighter you cant kill, because you cant kill what you cant see. No plane is suposed to get a radar lock on the top US stealth fighter at a long rate. Modus operandi here is to delete such information and refer to a common agreement, which will never happen, with the result of a succesfull deletion of sources and lock of discussion. This has been happening for 2 years, and it's patrotic vandalism in action as we speak. --Financialmodel (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

RFC : Content dispute and allegations of bias

A content dispute has arisen as to whether to include details of alledged meetings between Eurofighter Typhoon & U.S. fighters - An Edit war has developed with attempts to get consensus on talk page failing, with one editor alleging US bias.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I think there is consensus. This is a matter of one editor deciding he does not like the consensus. I have yet to see anyone but Financialmodel object to removing "exercise encounters" on the grounds that they bring nothing of value to the entry.Downtrip (talk)

Also where is the RfC. I followed the link above and did not find it.Downtrip (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC). This is the link to follow to the RFC: [18]

I think that the bot that's meant to add the RfC to the main page is broken. And if there is consensus, then this should be sorted easily.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC). This is the link to follow to the RFC: [19]

I've protected the page. I have to read over the discussion page and check the page history to figure out what's going on, but for now everyone will have to keep their edits limited to this page. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine. In summary:

1. You cannot prove a negative, but the citations used are suspect, third person unattributed, and uncorroborated.Downtrip (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Already the BBC was incorrect in stating the Typhoon had IRST when one of the engagements supposedly took place because it was not fielded until August 2007.Downtrip (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

3. What is the relevance? So what even if they do happen. Do we know all the circumstances? Do we know what eahc pilot was trying to accomplish. Do exercises and chance encounters really reflect actual combat abilities? Further the exercises that are stage are supposed to be learning or evaluation events. They do not necessarily reflect real world capability against another jet.Downtrip (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Please also take a look at the arguments presented in the Fourth Generation Fourth generation jet fighter talk page.Downtrip (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

5. User Financialmodelseems to be the only one insisting we keep exercise reports.Downtrip (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think comparisons like this should never be made in an encyclopedia period.Downtrip (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Downtrip continued bias. The sources are clear, and there are several now. Downtrip cant find any sources that question these sources, except his own personal believe. In point two above he try to attack BBC, again questioning their statements, but again he fail to do so, he claim they must be lying, read:

• 2. Downtrip says: Already the BBC was incorrect in stating the Typhoon had IRST when one of the engagements supposedly took place because it was not fielded until August 2007.

But this is just another example of how Downtrip personal belief with no sources to question sources as BBC etc. bring him on thin ice. As is the overall conflict here, he delete valid sources, because he use his own personal opinion. He just claimed BBC was wrong again, because he belive there was no IRST for the Typhoon when this was reported, but as I shall shoow here, the Eurofighter had IRST already in 2005, read EADS, Munich 16 November 2005:

During a visit to the Manching facility of EADS Military Aircraft on 7th and 8th November, Major General Klaus L. Axelsen, Chief of the Royal Danish Air Force Air Materiel Command (AMC), and National Armament Director, flew the Eurofighter in a scheduled flight test sortie in which he experienced the overall capabilities of the aircraft. In particular, he participated in very demanding flight control system tests of the automatic recovery system and the Infra Red Search and Track system (IRST). IRST forms an important part of the overall integrated system suite of sensors within the Eurofighter Weapon System. In addition, as a demonstration of the Eurofighter’s superb handling capabilities and a significant achievement on his first flight, the General flew the aircraft throughout the entire mission, including the landing. Danish National Armament Director flight-tested the Eurofighter

.....the reasons for deletions are false claims and personal beliefs (with no sources to back it up) used in arguments by these F-22 patriots, as Downtrip just showed you here. He attack sources on personal beliefs and false claims, and from this he remove valid sources. --Financialmodel (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the link to follow to the RFC: [20] FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

Facts are this is reported by valid sources, IAPR, BBC world, Flight international, soo far these patriotic vandals have not been able to present any sources that counter the statements from BBC World, IAPR and Flight International. Based on personal beliefs these sources have been deleted by a lot American wiki users for over a period of 2 years now, and then locked out with the argument such sources as BBC World and IAPR and Flight International required consensus. One needs just to look in the current version to watch this patriotic vandlism in action. Now that it cant be deleted, vandalism is made on the statement itself, which bothers these patriots, and is the reason for this patriotic vandalism. Read how current version have been changed from:

• "radar lock on the F22 at a suprisingly long rate",

to

• "radar lock for a surprisingly long period of time"

Why is this soo important for the vandals? Because a radar lock on the F-22 on a long range would question the whole stealh principle of the F-22, which is now refered to as the invisible fighter you cant kill, because you cant kill what you cant see. No plane is suposed to get a radar lock on the top US stealth fighter at a long rate. Modus operandi here is to delete such information and refer to a common agreement, which will never happen, with the result of a succesfull deletion of sources and lock of discussion. This has been happening for 2 years, and it's patrotic vandalism in action as we speak. Wiki should stop such patriotic vandalism. --Financialmodel (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Funny how Downtrip refer to another playground of American patriots, calling themself wiki users: Fourth generation jet fighter.

This is a conflicted section also, and it's locked right now, why?

Because the whole principle of " X generation" for fighter jets, is a marketing tool, made up by Lockheed Martin, a US aerospace company. There is no such thing as "X generation fighter", its a meassure defined for marketing campains by Lockheed Martin, so you can make claims as such:

"The JSF is one of only two fifth generation aircraft. The other is the F-22 Raptor. Both aircraft are built by the US-based Lockheed Martin company."[21]

Just take a look at the page Downtrip refer to, and watch how the game is to brand the Typhoon as a 4 or 4,5 generation fighter", while F-22 and JSF will be branded as only fifth generation aircrafts. The fact that wiki even buy into this whole marketing trick, and let the patriots establish their own marketing playground, is questional in itself. It's spin, and wiki is taken hostage in this patiotic campain. Provide sources that counter the mentioned sources provided here, as BBC world, International Air Power Review (IAPR) or Flight International, if you you can, but soo far the so called "critics" of these sources seem to exist only as American user here on wiki. Stop this patriotic vandalism now, its not in the interest of wiki. --Financialmodel (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been asked many times to stop making personal attacks, calling other editors "vandals" does not constitute proper behaviour. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

• Now i see the section have been silenced again, but who was the admin behind this change?

• "radar lock on the F22 at a suprisingly long rate",

to

• "radar lock for a surprisingly long period of time"

- that the work of a vandal in action. Find out who made this edit, before it was now completly removed, and you have a vandal right there caught red handed--Financialmodel (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

For the last time, AGF, and I made the edit, where is the vandalism? Bzuk (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC). In rereading the comments in the discussion, it appears that there may have been a "garbled" statement wherein "rate" (defined below):

1. A quantity measured with respect to another measured quantity: a rate of speed of 60 miles an hour.

2. A measure of a part with respect to a whole; a proportion: the mortality rate; a tax rate.

3. The cost per unit of a commodity or service: postal rates.

4. A charge or payment calculated in relation to a particular sum or quantity: interest rates.

5. Level of quality.

may have really been a typo/spello, and should have been "range" (defined below):

a. Extent of perception, knowledge, experience, or ability.

b. The area or sphere in which an activity takes place.

c. The full extent covered: within the range of possibilities.

The sentence may have been intended to be written as "radar lock on the F22 at a surprisingly long range."

FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC).

Just wanted to make a comment from some users about a North American bias - I am not from North America and think that most of the comments about F22 v Typhoon are not really notable and as all new aircraft it is going out and doing Operational Evaluation (funny that the Typhoon Unit is called the Operational Evaluation Unit !) this is standard practice for all new military aircraft types. This involves evaluating against all known scenarios, one of which may involve working with US forces - not really notable. I dont see lists on other aircraft articles about all the operational evaluation that the aircraft has gone through. Perhaps we should have a discussion on Typhoon v Hawk and Typhoon v Tornado which have also been done. Suggest all we need to say that as part of the introduction to service the aircraft has been evaluated against all known operating scenarios. MilborneOne (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with MilbourneOne. For the record, I think that the Typhoon is a remarkable aircraft. I also agree with Finanicalmodel that if there were similar reports that the F-22 had trounced the Typhoon in trials, it would be very hard to keep such reports out of the F-22 article!! However that's not an excuse for adding such material here and the comparisons with the F-22 are not adequate. There's too many questionable statements & inaccuracies etc. Also, both aircraft are very much in their developmental/interim configurations - the question over what various flight control/avionics/radar standards were available to each aircraft at the time is significant and original research without verfication.

Oh, and a RFC is fine. But what on earth has this topic to do with "History and geography"?? That is rediculous. I haven't bothered to look who put it in that category so hopefully I can't be accused of a personal attack - but it seems to me like cherry picking your audience. Would you put George Bush under "A user has requested comment on Fashion"?? Mark83 (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I RfC'd it to History & Geography becuase of WP:Milhist - which I thought linked in reasonably well -I apologise if it should have gone somewhere elseNigel Ish (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• I tried to follow the link, just to find personal attacks by Bzuk. Link is now dead by using the link in start of this topic, but an open window here had link before broken, read [22]:

Bzuk said on that page: The reason for the query to an admin board was that the pattern of discussion resembles that of a former banned editor, (Wikizilla) who has appeared on the talk page and article previously with sock/meat puppets. How can that possibility be determined/eliminated? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

So now you try to ban me Bzuk, by linking me to someone who also complained over you patriotic vandalism? I wonder how you managed to have him banned? Same style? Your modus operandi is shamefull, you talk about how you can't question users origin, since you claim these are personal attacks, and yet you imply I am a former banned user, that should be banned. This is not even er personal attack, this is games with tricks so low i wonder how you can even watch yourself in the mirror talk 23:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like Bzuk is from Manitoba according to his talk page. Do you have any idea where that is Financialmodel? I really don't care if you are a sock or not, but it does appear to me from your edit history that you have an unhealthy obsession with the Eurofighter/F-22 entries.Downtrip (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's quite simple, I simply refuse to put up with your vandalism and deletion of sourced material. If Bzuk response to this is to try to get me banned by saying I resemble Wikizilla, a wiki editor he probably managed to get banned earlier, then so be it. Facts are you cant provide any reasons for why all these sources shouldnt be mentioned other than your own personal belief. Who want to improve this article when its just deleted by small group here, that seems to have no interest in keeping this article up to date. The article is a mess, and it will continue to as long as you continue to think you are in your good right to delete huge part of this article on your personal beleifs. There is a word for it, and its called vandalism. Focus on improving the article, and add information sensors/weapons systems, instead of your deletions. You might have managed to delete it one more time and getting a real lock on it, instead your classic "consensus" lock, but this is not over, eventhough i see Bzuk have already started to work hard on his "Wikizilla"-ban trick --Financialmodel (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• The patriotic vandalism with deletion of these sources, BBC world, Flight International, International Air Power Review, is only part of what we see here, you are alos not allowed to improve the cost section of the F-22 article, because same group (Downtrip, FNlayson e.g.) veto such. I shall refer to this source as well, to show how they work, the pricetag of the F-22 is cherrypicked, and you are not allowed to add UPC info from 3 different congressional sources, because it will show readers the cost used here on wiki is questionable, in short, I refer to: [23] --Financialmodel (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Also this should be relevant if one wants to get a clear overview of the situation, though it will require quite some reading: Disputed cost and aversion to criticism. The same F-22 wiki editors behind the removal of these sources as BBC world, international Airpower Rewiew, and Flight Global, that report on tests between the Typhoon and F-22, also refuse valid sources from US Congress, regarding the cost of the F-22 project in that article, and the same editors dont find criticism nessesary, though such is to find from many corners. When will the such patriotic vandalism be questioned?--Financialmodel (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

See edit history for the exact record of editors who have worked on this article. You have misconstrued good-faith edits, as my edits were all in support of other editors' decisions, and I only would revert if another editor judged the submission was inappropriate. I have no abiding interest in this article or topic as it is only one of approximately 700 articles in which I have made contributions. However, I have attempted to find a resolution to a controversy that surrounds this article. Encyclopedic material created by a team process of numerous editors contributing their expertise can sometimes lead to a situation wherein all opinions are sought out to come to a decision as to direction or progress. There has already been considerable commentary in earlier discussions regarding respective fighter performances and capabilities but when a very contentious issue such as this occurs, there needs to be a set of clear-cut, verifiable and authoritative sources provided along with a consensus-driven decision. The use of a consensus poll is the means to resolve conflicts or disputes.

I will move these tags to the talk page headers afterwards. Bzuk (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC).