[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/k/ - Weapons



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: IMG_0686.jpg (92 KB, 713x401)
92 KB
92 KB JPG
Why do people consider the Typhoon a failure of a program? More have been made and sold than the Gripen and Rafale combined, yet all I hear is people talk shit about it.

American here, I'm not trying to start a dickwaving contest here, I'm actually curious.
>>
File: serveimage.jpg (2.31 MB, 1800x1200)
2.31 MB
2.31 MB JPG
I don't know
>>
>>35451080
Cost over runs, lack of agreement between partner nations (france) and lack of interest in developing the platform. The uk has turned them into capable fighers with future ground strike capability with trance 3 versions, while germany is still on trance 1 with no interest in spending more
>>
>>35451080
Too expensive for what it is.
>>
>>35451121
Sounds like literally ever piece of military hardware produced post 1980
>>
>>35451080
The Tornado F3 is fully the equal of the F-15C, and the GR4 of the F-15E.

The Victor had a bombload nearly as big as an early B-52.

The Hunter was capable of supersonic flight and could outmatch the F-100 and F-102 in both their respective roles.

Sea Vixen was superior to the F-8
>>
>>35451080
It has had a long and colorful development process fraught with problems. A big one that had caused the UK and Austria in particular much inconvenience is that it's more expensive to upgrade a T1 Eurofighter to T2 and beyond than to buy a newly built plane.
This is why Austria is dumping theirs and UK is selling of some of theirs to mitigate the cost.

As for export success, you usually only count contracts to non partners in the project. There are many operators of the Eurofighter but it also had many members.
It does seem to have a large fan following among oil princes, so there is always that.
>>
>>35451134
>The Tornado F3 is fully the equal of the F-15C, and the GR4 of the F-15E.
What did hea mean by this.

The Tornado F.3 wasn't a spectacular fighter, the F-15 is probably the best ASF ever built though.
>>
>>35451175
What he means is that you fell for pasta

>>35451164
Austria didn't even get full T1 versions and bitches no end about it
>>
>>35451187
>pasta
Wouldn't surprise me if it were a serious opinion given the state of /k/
>>
>>35451134
>this fucking pasta again
>>
Because the internet runs on rumor, echo-chambers and contrarianism
>>
>>35451080
Because despite the sales it's an okay but not great 4.5th gen fighter for like double the price of a Super Hornet; even an F-35 is cheaper.
>>
>>35451134
stop trying to force your shitty meme, it's not happening.
>>
>>35451187
>bitches no end about it
The eurofighter consortium kiked the fuck out of Austria, they have every right to complain.
>>
>>35451080
The only reason the Typhoon is a good plane is because of the Brits.

They managed to power through the absolute shitfest that is every single European aerospace project, with the exception of exclusive French - British partnerships.
>>
File: screen320x480.jpg (22 KB, 320x480)
22 KB
22 KB JPG
>>35454150
>German, French, British joint project
>French throw a shitfit and the project flounders
>British/French project
>Goes okay, or at least promise

its like some euro procurement puzzle
>>
>>35454228
The thing is, Brits and Frogs are the only Euro countries with a capable aerospace industry.

If they work together, they can aim for something pretty good.

But if other coutries, with smaller budgets, needs and capabilities get in the equation, it's different.

The Brits will try to make some compromises, to get at least something they can work on and upgrade later on.

The French would rather just say 'Fuck it' and go their own way.
>>
>>35451080

F-16 does everything it does and a lot more for a lot cheaper?
>>
>>35451080
Because they are not a revolutionary jump. They are still 4th generation. F-15s can still compete with them, even if they are at.a disadvantage.

>>35455712
F-16 is smaller with shorter range and smaller payload. For most European nations, F-16s are perfectly fine.
>>
>>35453742

Austria did it to themselves out of being too pants on head retarded at air forces to understand why buying second hand from GERMANY and then not buying spare parts is a bad fucking idea.

Now they're just trying to pin the blame.
>>
>>35452523
stop giving him (you)s and he'll stop posting it

can you faggots not into incentives
>>
>>35451080
Released too late in the 4th Gen cycle.
High cost.
>>
Still a very capable aircraft. What's the latest on getting them equipped with CAPTOR-E and Meteor?
>>
File: Typhoon brake.jpg (522 KB, 1080x1080)
522 KB
522 KB JPG
>>35456920

Meteor next year, along with Storm Shadow and Brimstone II. Britecloud active decoys should also be added.

CAPTOR-E the year after in 2019. It's not considered an immediate priority due to the radar already being pretty good and the F-35 coming into service brings AESA capability anyway, so the Typhoons one wasn't pushed as an immediate upgrade for 2018 like the rest of Project Centurion. Funnily enough the first one to get AESA will be a Kuwaiti aircraft, the way the build schedule ended up working out. MARTE-ER should also occur at this time as an integrated weapon, the first dedicated ASM on it.

After that it's on to Spear Cap 3.

BAE have also been showing off the Striker II with augmented reality HUD, integrated NV without the need for goggles and even talk of an Advanced Super Hornet style "single panel display" to replace the cockpit interface, which would be incredible. The Naval Strike Missile is also being integrated.

Good future ahead for the aircraft, even if production is slowing as 4th gen customers slowly dry up. If the 2nd Saudi batch comes along though, it'll be a huge help.
>>
>>35457500
With integrated 800 series alq Wiley corp. owl tactical control helmet.add your own gimbal.thank u admiral Brent m Bennett.still worship u
>>
>>35457500
while the typhoon will dry up, I wonder what will happen about 15 years post F-35 of 2020. Tech proliferation, and the EU will have either continued where its going, or started federalization/ statehood of its members to create a unified military.
>>
>>35456456
The Typhoon's max fuel load is like 15000lbs due to those teeny tiny 1000L droptanks.
The F-16 hits 12000lbs with no additional drag with CFT's. Add two regular 370gals drop tanks and you're already over 15000lbs. Want even more ? Switch the 370gals EFT for 600gals one (Israelis like to do this), add maybe a 300gal centerline tank and you can reach over 20000lbs of fuel.

Sure, the Typhoon might have more hardpoints, but if your only drop tanks are small supersonic ones made for AA combat, you'll never be able to compete to a similarly sized aircraft with CFTs and huge drop tanks.
>>
>>35456669
It was mainly that the Eurofighter consortium jumbled the actual costs, lied about capability and bribed the fuck out of key personnel.
>>
>>35461411
~11,000lb internal, with 3 x ~1800lb supersonic fuel tanks is about 16,400lb fuel. in a standard low drag configuration that still lets it supercruise. (something the F-16 is entirely incapable of)

With the F-16 packing huge fuck off full CFTs and 600gal tanks, it can't do anything. Its a truck that won't survive A2A and can't pull any Gs at all and uses its high weight pylons for fuel.

Its a really dumb comparison.
>>
>>35461583
CFTs don't add any drag, pilots can't even tell they've been mounted without looking over their shoulder to check.

>Adding fuel degrades performance
Duuuuuuh. But it's better having a fighter on station for maybe an hour instead of 10 minutes. The Typhoon range issues are well documented, just check the swiss competition pdf. Don't try to turn having less fuel into a pro, when drop tanks are always jettisonable and rated to 6g.
>>
>>35461870
>CFTs don't add any drag, pilots can't even tell they've been mounted without looking over their shoulder to check.
wrong
>>
>>35461870
CFTs do add drag. Its physically impossible for them not to do so.
>swiss competition
oh, you're one of those mount stupid people. figures.
>>
>>35461885
>>35461895

>“The flying qualities of the F-16 with CFTs are essentially unchanged when compared to a non-CFT equipped airplane. For most combat flight conditions, it’s as if the CFTs are not even there. The surest way for me to tell if CFTs are installed is to look over my shoulder.”


https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-dont-new-u-s-air-force-f-16s-use-these-futuristic-1712746714

Hope you just realized aerodynamics can be tricky and aerospace companies spend billions on CFD softwares for good reasons.
>>
>>35461913
all the aerodynamics in the world won't stop weight causing more drag.

"essentially unchanged" =/= "unchanged".
>>
File: dragformula.png (6 KB, 382x190)
6 KB
6 KB PNG
>>35461934
Do you have any idea what drag is ? Have you even been in a physics class once in your life ? Because weight has absolutely no influence whatsoever on drag.
Do we really care whether it actually increases drag by 2% or no when it practice there's absolutely no noticeable difference ?
>>
>>35461913
>foxtrotalpha

just spare yourself the humiliation and never post here again
>>
>>35461895
>Swiss competition was rigged!

Oh boy, here we go again.
>>
>>35462082
"rigged" is too far, but it was certainly under the influence of bias, just like every other procurement competition.

Theres also the fact that the Typhoons flying today in airforces that give a shit about them are not like the ones used in the swiss trials.
>>
>>35462082

No even him, but you're actually using the swiss competition as a source of argument, you actually need to kill yourself.
>>
>>35461895
>CFTs do add drag. Its physically impossible for them not to do so.
Not really. You are assuming that the F-16, designed in the 70s, has perfect aerodynamics to begin with.
>>
>>35451247
And Russian and Chinese propaganda.
>>
>>35462093
>You are assuming that the F-16, designed in the 70s, has perfect aerodynamics to begin with.
no?

Something doesn't have to be anywhere near approaching perfect to be made worse. CFTs are a good method of putting more fuel than originally designed onto an aircraft because they're low impact, but there still is an impact.
>>
>>35462090
Not the guy that first mentioned them. I just love how fanboys get so rectal ravaged over the competition yet are unable to provide any sort if proof or say why it was so terrible
>>
>>35461989
>Do we really care whether it actually increases drag by 2%

Yes
>>
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand.........

another Typhoon crashed today in Spain. Pilot dead.

Link is spanish media, so use translate.

https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/espana/2017/10/12/estrella-eurofighter-albacete-volvia-desfile-del12-o/00031507804715887452200.htm
>>
It´s the second one in days, if we count the Italian one.
>>
>>35462145
Lazy Spane had to take a siesta
>>
>>35462153
It was at 12:00, so time for the wine and the pintxos before lunch. Pilot was so hungry
>>
File: HMS RAF Akrotiri.jpg (458 KB, 1501x970)
458 KB
458 KB JPG
>>35461411
Typhoon has a fully laden ground strike radius of 1,389 km. F16 has a fully laden ground strike radius of less than half that at 550 km.

comparing the weight of fuel carried is retarded, it ignores all the important variables such as aerodynamics, speed, fuel type, engine performance, flying conditions.

If you were to make a wish list of all the things users wanted to be improved about typhoon, kinematic performance and range would be right down near the bottom - which is why there is another 15-25% performance that has yet to be extracted from EJ2000 through further development.
>>
>>35454312
Imo Sweden should be added to that list. Say what you will about the grape, SAAB is extremely competent.
>>
>>35451080
>Why do people consider the Typhoon a failure of a program?

It is textbook example of bad project management, delays, cost overruns and political objectives being more important than actual product. Business as usual when it comes to European cooperation.

>>35451164
>As for export success

Most Eurofighters sold outside of partner nations are planes originally contracted by partner nations. Saudi Arabian planes were originally ordered by RAF. Austrian planes were originally contracted by Luftwaffe. Newer export deals to smaller Arab countries are actually aircraft contracted by client states.
>>
>>35458753
Are you having a stroke?
>>
File: range.png (39 KB, 459x368)
39 KB
39 KB PNG
>>35462470
>Typhoon has a fully laden ground strike radius of 1389km.

I'll need a source on this one, because range values are super variable : "fully laden" might just mean 2 GBU-12, there might or might not be loiter time included, air to air combat combat, etc.

>F-16 has a fully laden ground strike radius of 550km.

What the fuck have you been smoking ? 550km is less than 300nm. Unless you're doing a low level penetration mission, you can easily do twice that on an F-16. Pic related is the range of an F-16 with the heaviest bombs it can carry. With 600 gals tank on a F-16E it would be even more than on the chart, because they can't be filled entirely with such a heavy bomb load due to the F-16C's MTOW. Add CFT's and a centerline fuel tank and you'd get pretty close to 700nm, if you don't reach it.

>comparing the weight of fuel carried is retarded, it ignores all the important variables such as aerodynamics, speed, fuel type, engine performance, flying conditions.


When a fighter can carry 33% more fuel than a similarly sized, same generation fighter, don't you think it's highly likely that it's going to have a better range/endurance in the same conditions ? And that's without taking in account that the F-16 is actually smaller in each dimensions and lighter empty than the Typhoon.
>>
File: 1507371874405.jpg (34 KB, 590x550)
34 KB
34 KB JPG
>>35451080
Personally I think her petite nose is pretty but I'm a bong so I may be biased.
It was a bedraggled, difficult development that suffered from severe post cold war syndrome, differing requirements and cooperative problems (some quite petty, we wanted to call it Spitfire II and Hans was not happy - Typhoon was another British WW2 aircraft though). The result was the initial tranches were late, expensive dog shit but the fundamentals of a fine plane were present. New tranches are basically the best thing outside of F35/22s. Most yuros are too buttblasted to admit this. But we aren't bothered about indigenous 5th gen, there is no public or political appetite. Nobody seems concerned that Turkey is getting F35s, or still has nukes, nobody is concerned about the Ukraine. Everybody is concerned about how skint they are and what the Germans will do to them if they step out of line.
Many of the criticisms and problems are similar to those of the F35, it's designed to do too many things, it's too expensive, lack of oversight, no clear threat, yadda yadda.
It's left it with a fairly earned but unfairly persistent reputation.
>>
>>35451080
>More have been made and sold than the Gripen and Rafale combined

Bought by shitloads of countries who made it, most countries that got it are getting rid of it.
>>
>>35451080
>Why do people consider the Typhoon a failure of a program?

who?
>>
>>35451080
>best E-M theory fighter in service
>failure
>>
File: Induced drag formula.png (21 KB, 687x496)
21 KB
21 KB PNG
>>35461870
>>35461989

For a start, it factors heavily into your induced drag formula, because it is an exponential value. Plus it can affect your maximum load factor load factor significantly, because it is easier to throw it into accelerated stalls at high speeds and to break shit. Which remarkably isn't good for fighting performance when you're trying to evade missiles and other such nasties.
>>
>>35462509
That's true, but I'm not sure they are as autonomous as BAe or Dassault could be, even in terms of production rather than just R&D.

The Rafale for instance is exclusively French built, even with some elements being licence-produced. Which in turns partially explains the high cost.
>>
File: TkFIEoS.jpg (109 KB, 800x510)
109 KB
109 KB JPG
>>35462509
>>35463357
Forgot pic
>>
>>35462660

Imagine writing both of these statements in one post and not realising the contradiction.

>When a fighter can carry 33% more fuel than a similarly sized, same generation fighter.

>And that's without taking in account that the F-16 is actually smaller in each dimensions and lighter empty than the Typhoon.

Typhoon produces more lift, flies higher, flies faster, has adaptive intakes to maximise performance throughout the flight profile. Not to mention has not one, but two far more modern engines.
>>
File: f16dde.png (39 KB, 230x86)
39 KB
39 KB PNG
>>35463238
Pilots that have flown with CFTs certainly didn't notice a difference when maneuvering. I guess I should rather trust you, because you seem to know better than them what makes a difference or no when flying the jet.

>>35463430
There's no contradiction, the fact is that even if the F-16 was the same size and weight as the Typhoon, it would probably have a longer range. In reality, it's actually even smaller and lighter, which only supports my point further.

>Typhoon produces more lift
At the cost of a higher drag, see every delta wing ever. I'm not sure it's going to be more efficient in cruise as the F-16.

>flies higher
Irrelevant, optimal cruise altitude is never at the edge of the flight ceiling, see pic related.

>flies faster
Once again, has absolutely nothing to do with optimal cruise performance.

>has adaptative intakes to maximise performance throughout the flight profile

Adaptative intakes only increase performance in supersonic flight, which is not what your plane will be cruising at, unless you're flying a SR-71.

>Not to mention has not one, but two far more modern engines

The number of engine has absolutely nothing to do with cruise performance on a fighter.
And the EJ-200 is absolutely not "far more modern" than an F-16 powerplant, unless you're comparing it to an early 80's F-16 which would be totally dishonest. The most recent F-16 all have the F110-GE-132 or newer variants, which is basically state of the art right now.
>>
>>35461448

You mean the Austrian government's opinion that found no evidence of what you said then?

Cute.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/20719#.Wd-aXTtryUk

>>35461870

>swiss

And there goes your credibility.

>>35462112

Because it's in the same vein as "F-22 kills pilots by suffocating them and F-35 lost to F-16!"

The Swiss trials were using an IPA prototype dual-seater from Germany, a country who is notorious for downgrading and cannabalising their airframes. In other words, it wasn't a Typhoon, really. The IPAs are a world away from the actual thing.

There's a reason Germany isn't really allowed to handle Typhoon exports anymore.

>>35463054

>Bought by shitloads of countries who made it

Last I checked Austria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Oman didn't make it.

>most countries that got it are getting rid of it.

One country, Austria, because they fucked their budget irrepairably.
>>
>>35463724
>Adaptative intakes only increase performance in supersonic flight, which is not what your plane will be cruising at, unless you're flying a SR-71.

Eurofighters are one of the few aircraft capable of supercruise.

aka cruising at supersonic speed.
>>
>>35463799
That still requires a high power setting, even if it's not past mil power.
Optimal cruise won't be above M0.6, which is what you're going to have to fly if you're trying to get the most range out of your fuel load.
>>
>>35451107
Most of our EFs are Tranche 2 and the rest is half 1 and 2.
>>
>>35463163
Eurofighter is basically a mad terrier. The abillity to gain and maintain a high state of kinetic energy is some insane bullshit.
>>
File: 1505916532724.webm (869 KB, 640x480)
869 KB
869 KB WEBM
>>
>>35463878
The reason why basically no nation wants to use the Eurofighter in a serious fighter-bomber role is it would take away all strenghts of the aircraft.
>>
>>35461989
>weight has no influence on drag
A higher weight means you need to produce more lift to stay in level flight
To produce more lift you need to increase AoA
Higher AoA leads to a higher Cd
>>
>>35463724
>There's no contradiction

>"similarly sized" = "Actually much smaller"?

kek

>At the cost of a higher drag

All lift of drag. an airliner produces more lift than an F16, but it doesn't stop the airliner using less fuel per mile.

>Once again, has absolutely nothing to do with optimal cruise performance.

why does it need to be optimal? not all missions are hi-hi-hi ferry routes. there are plenty of situations where high altitude sprints are required in a mission profile, and for that higher is better.

Also while on the subject of optimal the 1,389km combat radius vs 550km radius were both hi-lo-hi with a maximum payload - 6 1000lb bombs for F16 and an unspecified weapon mix at maximum takeoff weight for Typhoon.

>Once again, has absolutely nothing to do with optimal cruise performance.

except it does. Like all aircraft, the most range can be extracted from an aircraft when the ratio between speed and drag is minimised, for typhoon optimal cruise is supersonic.

>Adaptative intakes only increase performance in supersonic flight, which is not what your plane will be cruising at, unless you're flying a SR-71.

see above, and not just SR71, but concorde, F22 and Typhoon. probably some other obscure ones but i don't feel like looking that up atm.

>The number of engine has absolutely nothing to do with cruise performance on a fighter.

Unless those two engines are not working as hard so as to save fuel and maximise the available airflow.

Also 132 is only an upgrade of an existing engine, it is and not a new engine - which is why it only has 2.6kN more thrust than the previous F100 engine. The F16 engine has remained mostly the same since the 1970's.

Even then it consumes more fuel, provides lest thrust and has a lower T/W than EJ2000.

Also, how many of the 4,500 F16's even have 132? 12 in Oman plus a few test aircraft? hmmm.

I don't even know why we are comparing F16 / Typhoon desu, its barely a competition.
>>
>>35463724
The tanks are optimized for high subsonic flight where the primary concern is parasite drag. However, you start needing to jink about, not only are you going to stress the airframe more, but slow down faster, slow down faster and be easier to stall, and harder to recover from. Just because a pilot feels no difference in straght and level flight in the regime where it's optimized does not mean that there aren't significantly detrimental effects to it.
>>
>>35455712
significantly inferior in A2A and no real advantage in A2G, CFTs are nice but the typhoon is getting them as well at least in RAF service
>>
>>35464361
Where was that ever anything more than a proposal?
>>
>>35463238
>load factor and weight separated out instead of just using lift
>S for wingspan instead of wing area
>Using a constant "k" in the numerator instead of Oswald number in the denominator
I mean... it's not wrong, technically... but that's one odd representation of induced drag.
>>35463840
>Optimal cruise won't be above M0.6
It very well could be, at altitude anyways. Even straight-wing jets usually have a drag divergence number higher than that. And other factors can push optimum cruise even beyond that. Both the SR-71 and Concorde burned less fuel per mile (though more per hour) during supersonic cruise than subsonic.
>>
>>35464093
>The tanks are optimized for high subsonic flight where the primary concern is parasite drag.
The relative priority of induced vs. parasite drag is more a function of IAS/dynamic pressure than of mach number. Up in the coffin corner it's entirely possible to have induced drag outweigh parasite drag at high subsonic speeds.

In any case, CFTs are lighter than equivalent EFTs so the point is sorta moot.
>>
>>35464361
>significantly inferior in A2A

AIM-120 doesn't care what it's fired from, anon.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.