Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon/Archive 2

message: 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:
#SIngle-seater
#Twin-engine
#Supercruise capability
#Stealth features
#Mach 2+ max speeds
#Development began in the 1980s
#Entered production in the early-mid 2000s
#Primary role of Air Superiority, with secondary air-to-ground capability
#Modern weapons
#Both the top of the line fighters for their contries
Differences:
#Internal weapons for F-22
#F-22 has greater designed stealth abilites, tho these are untested in actual combat
#Higher supercruise speed for F-22
#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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I do mean warring. Warnings are for admins to give :) Users can only undo... CyrilleDunant 17:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Users can give warnings if needed.  But it takes admins to block them. -Fnlayson 17:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: F-22 consensus

message: 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)
thread_title: Possible compromise

message: 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 $117 million(http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123022371)
So do you want to keep this article about the Eurofighter or should we draw other weapons systems in and tell the complete accurate story?12.164.252.102 06:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The system cost for a Eurofighter is ~ 75 Mio. € euro with engines. That contains parts, weapons, simulator and and and. The USAF price is without engines, without nothing, that is not realy comparable. The Systemcost for your F-22 is 345 Mio. US$ (2005, 178 F-22)!--90.186.147.65 07:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title: Cost Escalation

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Typhoon on TV 

message: 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! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 13:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Validity of an edit needs to be checked

message: 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)
replies: text: There's no reason that it can't be paraphrased.Mark83 10:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Fair Use of a Paragraph 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Message to Mark 

message: 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)
replies: text: Actually, all of the partners are discussing the impact of potential reduced buys.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Askari Mark (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italy & Tranche 3 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Heavy weapons trials 

message: (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. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 13:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note on IP reversions

message: 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. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: S-protect

message: 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)
thread_title:  Japan may buy Eurofighter 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Typhoons to Romania 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tranche 2, Typhoon Development 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sensor Order for Typhoon 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tiffie video 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ZJ812 and ZJ800 

message: "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)
replies: text: I see WZ from Reston has been hanging around again. - BillCJ 06:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eurofighter Propaganda 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tranche 2 Avionics Now in Flight Test 

message: 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)
thread_title:  BAE Is Talking With 10 Countries About Eurofighter 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  LDP trial success 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Typhoon repair deal  

message: A possible order for additionally 24 Eurofighters--HDP (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maybe more Typhoons for Saudi Arabia

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: And now a third reference. --HDP (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: An industry site a "fanboy" site? Hardly. Oh, if only I could believe your "goodbye"! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: * OK.  Yes, definitely not a fanboy site. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  Sustained turn rate 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  metre vs meters 

message: 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)
thread_title: Request for added Categories

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't think that this really belongs here - perhaps in the EJ200 article?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  repaired [[blisk]] from a low-pressure turbine of the Eurofighter's EJ200 engine 

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

message: 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:
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)
thread_title: Eurofighters weapons not even mentioned?

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Edit war

message: In 2006 the aerospace/air force magazine "internatinal AIR POWER REVIEW"internatinal AIR POWER REVIEW" - year 2006, issue 20, page 45. - ISNB: 1-880588-91-9 (casebound) or ISBN: 1473-9917.
 (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 to make Show debut at IDEF Ankara 2005. 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" Q&A: What makes the Eurofighter fly?, 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. Eurofighter bids to be world's best
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-22Eurofighter Typhoon special: Blue sky thinking. 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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