Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon/Archive 1

message: I had chosen the words quite carefully there. The F-22 should be a clearly superior fighter when it enters service, but it is not in service yet and won't be for a few months. So if you don't mind I'll change it back for now, I think the Typhoon should be allowed its moment of glory! 
Sergeirichard 00:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The F-22_Raptor page claims that 51 were in service as of late 2004. Even if this were not the case, I think it is generally not a good idea to claim anything as being the "best" or "most capable" in an entry, as it tends to be POV. "Fastest", "most kills", "most expensive", "rated the best by Jane's" are all meaningful phrases that could be objectively true. Where there is a clear consensus that something is "most capable", it should always be possible to replace the subjective phrase with something more concrete. --Jsolinsky 09:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Even "amongst the most capable" bothers me. It ought to be relatively easy for a fan of the aircraft to find a highly positive quote reguarding the Typhoon's capabilities in one of the more respected publications, thus removing the subjectivity. --Jsolinsky 09:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primus Inter Pares 

message: This article should really have an infobox such as used in many other aircraft articles - I can modify the Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier infobox and post it here for verification. Good idea? -Benbread 18:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any number of reasons.  One, Europe's conventional submarine forces are reputed to have repeatedly "sunk" American carriers in exercises, possibly making Europe a bit more skeptical about whether carriers are still viable in a "hot war" situation.  Two, European countries were faced with a direct threat over a land border; that hasn't existed for the US since the invention of the airplane.  Third, it arguably still does; Russia hardly seems likely to start a war with the west any time soon, but it is a militarily powerful country that has relapsed into something much less than democratic.  Fourth, because "Europe" doesn't have a common military, buying really big pieces of hardware like carrier fleets is kinda awkward financially.  Fifth, because maybe Europe doesn't really feel the need to have global "power projection" capabilities; it's quite happy to be have formidible local defense to deter any invasion and leave the neocolonialism to the US.  Fifth, because buying fighter planes isn't an entirely rational decision; they get male politicians, who've read Biggles books like the rest of us, irrationally excited.  --Robert Merkel 06:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It should be noted that Eurofighters cannot be deployed on UK aircraft carriers because they are SVTOL, not full size. The Future Carrier ships will likely be suitable for Typhoon deployment, but remember that we don't have the Atlantic Ocean to deal with, so Aircraft Carriers are less required -Benbread 13:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The Typhoon can't be deployed from current Royal Navy 'Invincible' class aircraft carriers as it does not have STOVL capability, nor do the carriers have arrestor wires/catpults. However, the future carrier program retains the option of having both arrestor wires and catapults, although they will not be fitted from the outset. The Future Carriers will carry JSF-B's that have STOVL. Remeber that Typhoon can be deployed from allied airbases near to the area of operations.
*Update
I can't find a couple of facts, and i'm not entirely sure on Entered Service/First Flight (for the latter i assumed the first Typoon Prototype not British Aerospace prototype)
Any suggestions, comments? -Benbread 18:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, the current guideline for an article says that you should remove the infobox so the specs for this plane are displayed correctly. But feel free to replace the infobox for the Hawker Siddeley Harrier with the new standard for the specs. --Sylvain Mielot 18:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Heh, maybe i should have read that before i spend 30 mins making the infobox, ahh well. -Benbread 19:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: With respect to the last edit, military project and especially planes are always years later, over budget, and take years after initial deployment to reach full capabilities (witness the F-22); in any case your claims are unsourced.  --Robert Merkel 01:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolled-back edit.. 

message: Unsourced rants on what a POS the Eurofighter is will get summarily reverted.  --Robert Merkel 00:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced rants... 

message: The Eurofighter Typhoon Page on Wikipedia needs some help with the writing.  The sentances are long and you cant understand them.  We need writing more like the F22 Raptor page.  Sentances that are understandable to a regular reader, and even fun to read.  I have started trying to change the sentences around to be more interesting. --clearfuture417
*Totally agree, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has just been awarded Featured, so it'd be a good template to work from --PopUpPirate 00:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * if I have time I wil reshuffle some of this text. I don't think that the production section with a lot of tables should come before a fairly large text section. Also, the error with a thumbnail should be cleared up. I'm too tired to do it now though. --The1exile 23:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Changes 

message: I note with interest that mentions of the Singapore evaluation in the article lacked reference to one of the biggest advantages that the Typhoon and Rafale would have possibly given over the F-15, namely, the MBDA Meteor, and its immediately availability to RSAF airbases in time of war.
To be honest, while the Eagle may not be on par with its evaluation competitors in the areas of manuveurability and avionics, given the training of the RSAF pilot, it is a sufficiently capable and modern aircraft, and would prove to be an even match to the Su-30MKs being acquired by Singapore's neighbours. However, if said neighbours begin engaging RSAF aircraft with R-77 air-to-airs without prior warning, Singapore would be unable to respond immediately with AMRAAMs, since they are stored in the US and would take time to ship home. 
Granted, such a scenario may seem a little ridiculous, but surely the immediate availability of BVRAAMS in RSAF airbases would have been considered in the Singapore evaluation, and thus deserve some mention, at least in terms of analysing the evaluation? --83.67.208.250 09:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was my understanding that the Meteor is not yet in production, and wont be ready until 2010 at best. Furthermore, I believe that the Eagle (F-15E modded to F-15SG, which is a strong ground-attack variant of the F-15K) decision was primarily motivated because neither the Rafael nor the Typhoon could demonstrate strength in Air to Ground capability. --68.105.141.199 02:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, thanks for clarifying. I was aware that Meteor was still in development, but didn't realise that projected production date would be beyond the RSAF's timeframe. Thanks for this. Your observation about the F-15SG's capabilities relative to the other two craft are also quite spot on. Having said that, I'm inclined to accept the rumours from the RSAF eval team regarding their pref for the Typhoon... When you mention lack in strength in Air to Ground, do you refer to the Typhoon and Rafale's projected capability when RSAF wants the planes delivered, or its Full Operational Capability? --83.67.208.250 00:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singapore Evaluation 

message: Hello all. Am gonna start monitoring the talk page and clear it of any comments I find to be inflammatory/annoying/attacks of personal nature. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. 83.67.208.250
:If you remove info you arbitrarily deem to be "inflammatory/annoying/attacks"  which others may not consider to be so, you risk being banned from editing. This is a talk page, where opinions are fine within limits. Just a friendly hint to not insist that your high limits must be accepted by others. Moriori 10:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted. thanks for the heads up. --83.67.208.250 10:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous vigilante monitoring 

message: I've removed the following:
:"The validity of this encounter has also come under much scrutiny by aviation enthusiasts who point to the the facts that no F-15s are deployed to the area in question, the Typhoon was devoid of its production anti-aircraft radar which were only installed in test aircraft in September, 2005, and the unlikelihood of exceedingly rare aircraft happening upon each other accidentaly."
Because
#"no F-15s are deployed to the area in question" — F-15s aren't based hundreds of miles away in Scotland, but can still be seen there, for example using the bombing range at Tain. They could easily have been going to/returning from exercises over the Irish Sea.
#"was devoid of its production anti-aircraft radar" — production radar or not, the BAE Typhoons have carried development radars for years and very likely trialling advanced capabilites much higher than initial production radars. Also the article merely states the Typhoons were able to dogfight their way out of being pursued, it doesn't mention any scenario where radar capability was necessary.
#"exceedingly rare" – F-15s are not exceedingly rare, Typhoons might have been but the area in question is close to Warton, where they were based at the time.
#Whoever added it is pursuing their own agenda. Does anyone doubt the Typhoon is capable of such a manouvre? Even F-15 pilots wouldn't argue it. Mark83 20:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section removed

message: You guys are really doing a good job here, so relax for amoment and check out this little fun propaganda from Royal Air Force ;-)  Cycling fan22 16:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, very enjoyable. Although its a Eurofighter GmbH video I think (just happens to be portraying a Royal Air Force Typhoon). The take off sequence and missile launches etc are very well done. Mark83 16:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I liked it too. Thanks for posting it. --Guinnog 17:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definite similarity to Behind Enemy Lines with the SAM sequence – dodgy looking smoking guy, freeze frames etc. Couldn't have been cheap to make. Mark83 17:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not seen that. Looks like it though, from the article. --Guinnog 17:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately the quality of the flash video isn't that good and sound sometimes asynchronous, but the downloaded *.avi is better. Cycling fan22 17:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, downloaded version is much better. I liked the way the Typhoon trashed the SU-35 :) don't know if this is that realistic, but after all they want to sell their plane... 84.56.28.238 17:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OT, but fun

message: I removed the following text from the first paragraph:
Also in Aug 2006,the BBC indicated that,reports suggest that RAF Eurofighters have flown highly successful missions against the F-22 during recent exercises in the US,and in reference to the F-22, stealth aircraft cannot carry out tight dogfight manoeuvres at high speed.
First of all I don't think the first paragraph was the best place for it, secondly I doubt the statement stealth aircraft cannot carry out tight dogfight manoeuvres at high speed.  I don't think an aircraft's stealthiness is directly linked to its manoeuverability at any speed.  I contacted the BBC about this when I read it in their original article and asked them where they had got the information from.  They could not provide a source for the information and eventually agreed that it should be taken out of the article.  Although the article from which the quote is taken appeared at the time of the Saudi order, the part about manoeuverability was actually written a few years ago.Mumby 10:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed reference to BBC article

message: Seems that according to reports at end of October 2006 that Turkish AF prefers the JSF (more fool them). It is for the NATO nation’s 15-year, $10 billion program to buy about 100 new-generation fighter aircraft, Turkish procurement and military officials said. Selection process had narrowed down to a choice between buying all JSFs and a mixed buy of the JSF and the Typhoon.
But the Air Force, whose fighter fleet is exclusively of U.S. design and which follows a strong American tradition, has opted for an all-JSF solution, the officials said.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2306905&C=europe
81.86.144.210 08:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Tiffie 2 for Turkey?

message: Typhoon has suffered very large cost increases 
has been changed to 
Typhoon has suffered large cost increases. 
Can the increase from £7 billion to £19 billion not be described as "very large"?  It is misleading to describe it as anything else: it is truly "very large" in both percentage and overall terms - the increase is a little larger than India's entire annual military spend for example.  Just to use "large" on its own is POV.  Mark83 mentions Wikipedia:Words to avoid, which I had a good look at, and I also checked on Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.  There is no reason why the reasons for the increase cannot be discussed - indeed they would be a helpful addition.  Any other views?   Springnuts 12:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with Mark83's edit, very is a relative term and is best left out.  However, I would go further and say that Typhoon has suffered.. is anthropomorphism, so the entire sentence needs a re-write.  Something along the lines of : "The cost of the Eurofighter project has increased from £7 billion to £19 billion", I think that is also better with respect to NPOV.Mumby 13:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, it's up to the reader to decide what's very large and what it is not. Also note that £19 billion is UK only costs, not total project costs. Mark83 13:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rewritten iaw Mumby's helpful comments - hope this is OK.  Some context of reasons for cost increases would be useful.  Springnuts 15:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The above issue has been resolved, the discussion is still available throught the link above (now a redirect for Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon variants) Mark83 21:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Costs and delays

message: In November the news media were reporting troubles with the Saudis over some slush fund investigation. Some mooted the possibility of it impacting the Eurofighter deal. For example, 
"Reports last weekend suggested officials within the Saudi Arabian defence ministry were threatening to withdraw from the Eurofighter deal unless the UK Government intervened to end the investigation".
See:
http://www.lep.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=73&ArticleID=1893789
Royzee 10:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK - the SFO have stopped the investigation.  Where now "Ethical Foreign Policy"? Springnuts 21:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Al Yamamah article notes the allegations fully. Regarding "The publicity might end up dooming the deal" -- that's just your POV, and my POV that that won't be the case. I don't want to turn this into a forum, but the Al Yamamah deals have been subject of allegations of corruption since the ink was still wet on the first deal. That didn't stop the Saudis going ahead with a second batch of Tornados and numerous other smaller but still lucrative contracts. The deal was threatened, but the end of the SFO inquiry effectively ends that threat. Mark83 23:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Your points are valid and interesting. However we are straying into forum territory here. Regarding the article, if you want to say the deal is still in doubt you would need a good reference. I think a contract is due to be signed in the summer, I guess it will be a mystery until then. Mark83 12:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Al Yamamah Troubles

message: In November the news media were reporting Eurofighter consortium was not "fit for purpose" in providing crucial support for the aircraft and needs to be restructured, according to the government.
Seems while Typhoon is liked by pilots, the UK MoD wants to modify it for ground attacks [the inevitable fate of all 'air superiority jets such as F16, F15 etc] and the consortium was dragging its feet. The RAF has retired the Jaguar prematurely but has Tornado IDS however it perceives a shortfall in capability drawing some criticism.
See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15870468/
Royzee 10:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All I can say about that is that, as far as I know, Typhoon has always been destined to have a ground attack role.  Initially this was to be introduced on tranche 3, but it seems like some A2G capability will be included in tranche 2 (who knows if the UK will even commit to tranche 3?).  Also, the Jaguar has not been retired yet, 6 Sqn at RAF Coningsby will be around for the best part of a year to come.Mumby 11:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK has already agreed its "austere" air-to-ground capability based on the Litening targeting pod from Ultra Electronics/Rafael and the Paveway LGBs. What confuses me is that NETMA performed this role for the Tornado without apparent problem, so what's changed? I think the article is referring to Eurofighter GmbH, which is not actually responsible for the mangagement of upgrades etc. I have no info to support this it's just my thoughts - but it could be that the MOD is making as much noise as possible to get what they want, it's happened a lot lately. e.g. using the carriers to try and get shipbuilding consolidation or telling the US Congress they will pull out of the JSF without tech. transfer. Mark83 11:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remodelling Typhoon Alliance

message: I realized afterwards why this material was changed (to link to the new article). However, I believe Mark83's paragraph stated the issue very concisely, with citations, and therefore merit's being retained. In addition, the Serious Fraud Office investigation into the Al Yamamah corruption allegations article is fairly short, and as the issue is seemingly closed, should probably be put back in the Al Yamamah article. As it stands, the new article is a likely candidate for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. - BillCJ 15:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Unexplained" deletions

message: The rest of this discussion quickly centred around the Al Yamamah article so I've transferred it to Talk:Al Yamamah. Mark83 21:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion transferred

message: The beginning of the article states the aircraft has formally entered service with the Italian Air Force and with the Spanish Air Force.  But hasn't he jet formally entered service with all partner nations?  I thought that the in-service-date was defined as the day on which the first jet was delivered.  Since all partner nations have had at least some jets delievered, is it not 'in service' with them all?  Perhaps there is some confusion between in service and operational status?Mumby 15:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "In service"

message: Someone added a couple of "citation needed" to the "combat performance"-section, and was right to do so. But when i added another "citation needed" to the statement "...while the F-22 by comparison can supercruise rather faster with a full internal weapons load" it was immediatly removed - i don't see why. Do we have a source how fast the one can supercruise and how fast the other? Leclerq 13:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't remove the tag you added but I do know that the general rule is to not have too many of them in an article.  The problem with the figures we are talking about is that most of them are classified, so any source that is cited is likely to be speculative.  Perhaps we need a general tag in the article that says something like "Information relevant to this article is classified" or something like that, a bit like that tag that says "this article relates to a current event" etc.  It could be argued that any attempt to compare the performances of these aircraft should be removed since it cannot be properly verified. Mumby 16:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Needed

message: is expected to be declared ... 2006 should be somehow changed as 2006 is over. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThurnerRupert (talk • contribs) 18:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  is expected to be declared ... 2006 

message: Can contributors please sign comments as it make is easier to see who is commenting to what, thank you. MilborneOne 21:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Signatures

message: Should we add Maverick to the list of A2G Weapons? Bumper12 13:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maverick?

message: The "See also" section at the bottom of the article lists "4th generation jet fighter," but the link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_generation_jet_fighter, lists the Eurofighter Typhoon as a 5th generation jet fighter.  My impression is that the Eurofighter Typhoon is a 4 or 4.5 generation jet fighter, not 5.  This needs to be cleared up and the references standardized. - MSTCrow 21:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an opinion but I would hazard most readers would not know (or probably care) what 4th or 5th generation actually means. MilborneOne 19:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While all of Askari Mark's contribution is welcome, I think the last point is excellent, as is MilborneOne's above. This whole topic is semantics - as Askari Mark says, describe its capabilties, not which (subjective) category it sits in. Mark83 19:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the warm commendations - fortunately, online you can't see me blush! ;-) Fnlayson and MilborneOne are right, it's been a minor issue on this particular page, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to head off the debate here ... and many months from now, if anyone is trying to remember where they saw the info, this article would be a key spot to look (and to point to in debates elsewhere). Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 02:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th or 5th Generation Jet Fighter?  

message: I've archived the previous discussions due to page size. Since it's the first archive I thought it would be helpful to explain. The archives are accessible via the box to the right. Mark83 13:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as I love your conspiracy theory there was one reason I archived - the page said "This page is 99 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance." Given the amount of time I've spent explaining myself I'm beginning to regret bothering to be honest. Mark83 21:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived discussion

message: http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/752/efraptorrw1.jpg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.115.192 (talk) 10:04, August 24, 2007 (UTC) 
Does it matter It could be photo shopped or it could be at an airfield out west.
- Its not photoshopped and it is the airforce field refered to "NAS China Lake" in California. 100% sure and if you go to this page you will see the Typhoon take of from "NAS China Lake", so your claim thats its an airfield out west dont work either --Financialmodel 12:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  China Lake is the NAVY Air Warfare Center. It is not an AIRFORCE "field". They do weapons integration testing on NAVAL aircraft. Whether it's photoshopped or not is irrelevant. By the way, what is your point?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.164.252.102 (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Did this ever happen?

message: I would like to discuss about supercruise speed. As I read in Czech magazine Aviation and Astronautics (Letectvi a kosmonautika 8/2007), the Typhoon has about Mach 1.6 supercruise speed. It was measured on preproduction plane with four AIM-120 Amraams and two some kind of short range missiles. This configuration has been mentioned as clean or chase configuration.
Liborc 19:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supercruise speed 

message: There's been increased media reporting on the Saudi deal being finalised very soon - keep a look out for official confirmation in the coming weeks. But when adding the news in, please change ALL references to the Saudi deal and use full citations. John Smith's 21:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice - keep your eyes peeled