Eurofighter Typhoon question
Guest
Posts: n/a
Eurofighter Typhoon question
Guys, please take no offence to this question, there is no intent on my part to be derogatory. I joined the USAF in 1985, and I remember back then that the British were designing what is now the Euro-fighter. My question is this: with the advent of stealth technology, and the fact the Typhoon isn't expected to enter service for at least a couple more years, isn't this aircraft almost obsolete. Now I know it is far superior than 90% of what else is out there, but wouldn't you guys want to enter a fight in something with stealth capabilities? I get the impression that the program is so large and so much has been spent that its too late to do anything about it. PS The US is not a whole lot better here, I remember in 1990 when the F-22 was first flown, its 10 years later and its still a few years away form entering service! Its amazing how long the R and D cycles of these aircraft are! What do you guys think? specifically about the non-stealthy aspects of the typhoon?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Think the Serbs demonstrated pretty conclusively that Stealth is not the panacea that you infer.
I think (dangerous, ill-informed journo opinion) that frontal aspect stealth may always be valid for the max range BVR case, and I understand that EF is pretty good in this area. All aspect Stealth is for the strike/attack/penetration boys, if anyone.
DVI + incredibly intuitive display formats and modings + a super cockpit + a great airframe and wonderful engines should mean EF will be the dog's knob when it enters service (long before F-22). IF,
a) The FCS works as well as BAE say it does, and not as crew-room gossip has it.
b) The radar works.
c) The IRST works better than it does now.
d) If the air-to-ground bits work.
IT IS:
Cheaper than an F-15, better than Rafale, F-16, F/A-18, 'Flanker' etc.
90% as effective as an F-22 at 50% of the price.
If the USA had any sense it would order a few.
I think (dangerous, ill-informed journo opinion) that frontal aspect stealth may always be valid for the max range BVR case, and I understand that EF is pretty good in this area. All aspect Stealth is for the strike/attack/penetration boys, if anyone.
DVI + incredibly intuitive display formats and modings + a super cockpit + a great airframe and wonderful engines should mean EF will be the dog's knob when it enters service (long before F-22). IF,
a) The FCS works as well as BAE say it does, and not as crew-room gossip has it.
b) The radar works.
c) The IRST works better than it does now.
d) If the air-to-ground bits work.
IT IS:
Cheaper than an F-15, better than Rafale, F-16, F/A-18, 'Flanker' etc.
90% as effective as an F-22 at 50% of the price.
If the USA had any sense it would order a few.
Guest
Posts: n/a
On the same basis as that last statement the UK would have ordered F-16s instead of F3s.
I'm not a stealth expert, but it's always occurred to me that it's all very well for an allegedly stealth aeroplane to be picked up by an incredibly sophisticed ground Radar or suchlike - but the systems on missiles and fighters are much less sophisticated. So you may know a Eurofighter is up there - but can you shoot it down?
So the only way to shoot a semi-stealthy fighter may be with another fighter even (shock horror) with guns. So to my way of thinking a semi-stealthy fighter that can dogfight well might be rather better value for money than a far more stealthy fighter that can't. My opinion only - does anybody have a counter argument?
And surely, the long lead time (I was doing wind tunnel tests on the final Eurofighter shape in 1990!) would only make it out of date IF anybody else was faster at getting products to the front line.
G
I'm not a stealth expert, but it's always occurred to me that it's all very well for an allegedly stealth aeroplane to be picked up by an incredibly sophisticed ground Radar or suchlike - but the systems on missiles and fighters are much less sophisticated. So you may know a Eurofighter is up there - but can you shoot it down?
So the only way to shoot a semi-stealthy fighter may be with another fighter even (shock horror) with guns. So to my way of thinking a semi-stealthy fighter that can dogfight well might be rather better value for money than a far more stealthy fighter that can't. My opinion only - does anybody have a counter argument?
And surely, the long lead time (I was doing wind tunnel tests on the final Eurofighter shape in 1990!) would only make it out of date IF anybody else was faster at getting products to the front line.
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
Friday October 13, 7:24 PM
MoD wants U.S. combat jet--source
By Bradley Perrett, European aerospace & defence correspondent
LONDON (Reuters) - The Ministry of Defence will recommend the government adopts the planned U.S. Joint Strike Fighter to equip the country's future aircraft carriers, a source familiar with the department's thinking said.
Rejecting bids from Boeing, Dassault Aviation , BAE Systems and the Eurofighter consortium offering other aircraft, the ministry wants the government to pay about one billion pounds to maintain Britain's role in the huge U.S. Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme, the source said.
The government is expected to decide whether to do so in the next few months.
"None of the other aircraft matches JSF's all-round performance and suitability," the source told Reuters.
Britain has been the United States' major partner in the development project for JSF and must decide in less than a year whether to continue its contributions to the programme's costs.
Theoretically, Britain has the option of buying JSFs off the shelf, without continuing its contributions to the development programme. But the source said the ministry sees persuasive reasons for sticking by the United States.
A British order for 150 JSFs has long been pencilled into the programme, but the ministry has been considering alternatives from Boeing, Dassault and other firms since the 1998 defence review.
Vertical-landing versions of the JSF could replace Royal Navy and Royal Air Force Harrier jump-jets, but another source said Britain had the option of switching to a different version designed to be launched from aircraft-carrier catapults.
"That's an option, although there are complications," that source said.
The project is also very closely matched to British requirements -- because Britain has been involved since its inception and joined the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps in writing the specification.
Aerospace engineers say most aspects of the plane's performance will far exceed that of comparable fighters.
Most notably, it is a stealthy plane, shaped so that it does not reflect radio waves back at enemy radars.
U.S. aerospace firms Lockheed Martin Corp and Boeing Co are competing for a prime contract to develop and build about 3,000 JSFs plus perhaps another 3,000 for export.
Britain needs JSFs or other planes for two large aircraft carriers it intends to bring into service from 2012.
The irony is that Britain needs to make a final decision on JSF before the Pentagon does, and that poses a risk, since the JSF is not scheduled to enter U.S. service until 2010. If it is selected but delayed by more than two years, then the carrier programme would be affected.
A Ministry of Defence official told a conference this week the possibility of the United States delaying JSF was an issue.
"From 2012 we expect (Harrier) numbers to become steadily unavailable," Air Commodore Peter Giles told the conference. "There is not going to be a hard cut-off (but) that doesn't mean that we are relaxed about it."
Giles would not say which aircraft had been chosen, adding the ministry would make a recommendation "in due course".
VALUABLE INFLUENCE
Conversely the second source said influence over the programme was the main reason Britain would want to keep up contributions to JSF development, rather than buy planes like any export customer.
"We get wonderful value for our money," that source said.
If Britain stayed in, the programme would be more likely to produce a plane that suited its armed forces, the source added.
The presence of an international partner might help persuade the U.S. Congress to keep the project on track and, perhaps most importantly, it would ensure that Britain would be among the first in the queue.
Also, no one has any idea how much regular export customers will have to fork out for their JSFs, whereas programme partners expect to pay only around $30 million to $35 million a plane.
Since other fighters cost $50 million or more, the winning contractor could easily expect to put a higher price on export JSFs.
The Eurofighter consortium combines European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co, BAE and Italy's Finmeccanica .
MoD wants U.S. combat jet--source
By Bradley Perrett, European aerospace & defence correspondent
LONDON (Reuters) - The Ministry of Defence will recommend the government adopts the planned U.S. Joint Strike Fighter to equip the country's future aircraft carriers, a source familiar with the department's thinking said.
Rejecting bids from Boeing, Dassault Aviation , BAE Systems and the Eurofighter consortium offering other aircraft, the ministry wants the government to pay about one billion pounds to maintain Britain's role in the huge U.S. Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme, the source said.
The government is expected to decide whether to do so in the next few months.
"None of the other aircraft matches JSF's all-round performance and suitability," the source told Reuters.
Britain has been the United States' major partner in the development project for JSF and must decide in less than a year whether to continue its contributions to the programme's costs.
Theoretically, Britain has the option of buying JSFs off the shelf, without continuing its contributions to the development programme. But the source said the ministry sees persuasive reasons for sticking by the United States.
A British order for 150 JSFs has long been pencilled into the programme, but the ministry has been considering alternatives from Boeing, Dassault and other firms since the 1998 defence review.
Vertical-landing versions of the JSF could replace Royal Navy and Royal Air Force Harrier jump-jets, but another source said Britain had the option of switching to a different version designed to be launched from aircraft-carrier catapults.
"That's an option, although there are complications," that source said.
The project is also very closely matched to British requirements -- because Britain has been involved since its inception and joined the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps in writing the specification.
Aerospace engineers say most aspects of the plane's performance will far exceed that of comparable fighters.
Most notably, it is a stealthy plane, shaped so that it does not reflect radio waves back at enemy radars.
U.S. aerospace firms Lockheed Martin Corp and Boeing Co are competing for a prime contract to develop and build about 3,000 JSFs plus perhaps another 3,000 for export.
Britain needs JSFs or other planes for two large aircraft carriers it intends to bring into service from 2012.
The irony is that Britain needs to make a final decision on JSF before the Pentagon does, and that poses a risk, since the JSF is not scheduled to enter U.S. service until 2010. If it is selected but delayed by more than two years, then the carrier programme would be affected.
A Ministry of Defence official told a conference this week the possibility of the United States delaying JSF was an issue.
"From 2012 we expect (Harrier) numbers to become steadily unavailable," Air Commodore Peter Giles told the conference. "There is not going to be a hard cut-off (but) that doesn't mean that we are relaxed about it."
Giles would not say which aircraft had been chosen, adding the ministry would make a recommendation "in due course".
VALUABLE INFLUENCE
Conversely the second source said influence over the programme was the main reason Britain would want to keep up contributions to JSF development, rather than buy planes like any export customer.
"We get wonderful value for our money," that source said.
If Britain stayed in, the programme would be more likely to produce a plane that suited its armed forces, the source added.
The presence of an international partner might help persuade the U.S. Congress to keep the project on track and, perhaps most importantly, it would ensure that Britain would be among the first in the queue.
Also, no one has any idea how much regular export customers will have to fork out for their JSFs, whereas programme partners expect to pay only around $30 million to $35 million a plane.
Since other fighters cost $50 million or more, the winning contractor could easily expect to put a higher price on export JSFs.
The Eurofighter consortium combines European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co, BAE and Italy's Finmeccanica .
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cycles
One has to admire how a journo can sit in the audience at a one day open syposium at the Royal Aeronautical Society (where some well chosen people gave unclassified presentations about the JSF programme) and then select bits they have said and sell it to Reuters as breaking news.
Why did he not start by saying he went to the afore mentioned event and everything that was expected was said and nothing unexpeceted happened.
I guess Ritchie Profit was right when he said “John Farley? - he will never grow up.”
If growing up means not telling the truth then I hope to die in nappies (good chance come to think about it)
JF
PS How was the 3 Sqn bash Ritchie?
[This message has been edited by John Farley (edited 14 October 2000).]
One has to admire how a journo can sit in the audience at a one day open syposium at the Royal Aeronautical Society (where some well chosen people gave unclassified presentations about the JSF programme) and then select bits they have said and sell it to Reuters as breaking news.
Why did he not start by saying he went to the afore mentioned event and everything that was expected was said and nothing unexpeceted happened.
I guess Ritchie Profit was right when he said “John Farley? - he will never grow up.”
If growing up means not telling the truth then I hope to die in nappies (good chance come to think about it)
JF
PS How was the 3 Sqn bash Ritchie?
[This message has been edited by John Farley (edited 14 October 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
F22 has stealth, supercruise, PA radar and TVC. Typooh has none of these. It may have low frontal RCS in 'clean' configuration, but when armed?
As for 'it has 90% of F22's capability at 50% of the cost', well, F16 Block 60 has 110% of EF's capability at a much lower cost.
Also, IIRC, F22's will join the Tyndall training wing from late 2002 with IOC late 2005/early 2006, so not too far behind Typooh and certainly long before any kind of actually working, effective model.
Roc is right, EF is simply a huge job-creation programme and the Germans would have done us all a favour if they'd pulled the plug on the bloody thing back in 1992.
Quite simply, the technology in the F22 is decades ahead of Eurofighter (but then so is the technology of the Albanian State Washing Machine Co.)
------------------
S. Potter, Esq
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the WAR ROOM!"
As for 'it has 90% of F22's capability at 50% of the cost', well, F16 Block 60 has 110% of EF's capability at a much lower cost.
Also, IIRC, F22's will join the Tyndall training wing from late 2002 with IOC late 2005/early 2006, so not too far behind Typooh and certainly long before any kind of actually working, effective model.
Roc is right, EF is simply a huge job-creation programme and the Germans would have done us all a favour if they'd pulled the plug on the bloody thing back in 1992.
Quite simply, the technology in the F22 is decades ahead of Eurofighter (but then so is the technology of the Albanian State Washing Machine Co.)
------------------
S. Potter, Esq
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the WAR ROOM!"
Guest
Posts: n/a
You can only optimise stealth against certain radar bands, not all. Even the mighty US jets can have problems.
As to EFA, the technology is at least 20 years old, 10 years to late and will come in to service if we are lucky in 5 years time. Anyone care to take a bet on EF coming in to service with most of it's kit working to spec, even the 1990 spec !!!
I hope it does ...... but history and the present are not kind to the British military industrial complex.
As to EFA, the technology is at least 20 years old, 10 years to late and will come in to service if we are lucky in 5 years time. Anyone care to take a bet on EF coming in to service with most of it's kit working to spec, even the 1990 spec !!!
I hope it does ...... but history and the present are not kind to the British military industrial complex.
Guest
Posts: n/a
S.Potter
"F16 Block 60 has 110% of EF's capability at a much lower cost."
I'm afraid you're talking knob.
And about F-22 timings, too. And remember whose HUD, HV avionics, etc are in F-22, and remember which aircraft has EFRCs, ETAPs, DVI (!) etc.
Supercruise? So what. Its only a faster supercruise than EF, and its of dubious relevance anyway.
Thrust vectoring? Useful for supersonic agility to enable you to rapidly gimbal your opponent, and v.useful for STOL but worth the money? (Don't tell me, the F-22s are going to be squandered in close-in visual 'knife fights' with Su-27s). In any case, EF are working on TVC anyway.
PA radar? Hmmmm. If it works.
The F-22 is even more of an inflexible, over-expensive Cold War aeroplane than EF, and lacks many of the Typhoon's attributes - including affordability and deployability.
There's plenty wrong with EF, I'll admit, but all this uncritical adulation of anything American is barely worth a response.
"F16 Block 60 has 110% of EF's capability at a much lower cost."
I'm afraid you're talking knob.
And about F-22 timings, too. And remember whose HUD, HV avionics, etc are in F-22, and remember which aircraft has EFRCs, ETAPs, DVI (!) etc.
Supercruise? So what. Its only a faster supercruise than EF, and its of dubious relevance anyway.
Thrust vectoring? Useful for supersonic agility to enable you to rapidly gimbal your opponent, and v.useful for STOL but worth the money? (Don't tell me, the F-22s are going to be squandered in close-in visual 'knife fights' with Su-27s). In any case, EF are working on TVC anyway.
PA radar? Hmmmm. If it works.
The F-22 is even more of an inflexible, over-expensive Cold War aeroplane than EF, and lacks many of the Typhoon's attributes - including affordability and deployability.
There's plenty wrong with EF, I'll admit, but all this uncritical adulation of anything American is barely worth a response.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jackonicko,
Up until now I have agreed with you 100% of the time, However, the argument you use about the US will not squander the F-22 in a close in knife fight is lacking any merit..Your going to tell a fighter pilot in arguably the best fighter in the world not to fight!!! please...would you have turned tail if your missiles didnt score at 20 miles? I could hear the brief now...Gentleman dont get closer than 50 miles from the SU-27's turn around and land!!
If you read my original question correctly I do not mean to insult the Brits, I love you guys, and am proud to fly alongside of you.happy were on the same team..I just question why its taking so long to get this plane on-line, and with the un-anticipated breakthrough of stealth technology, I find it amazing that any new aircraft, including rafael,and F-18E/F would be fielded without using this great breakthrough. What Jet would you, given the choice, like to go into battle strapped under your butt? I know my answer!!
Up until now I have agreed with you 100% of the time, However, the argument you use about the US will not squander the F-22 in a close in knife fight is lacking any merit..Your going to tell a fighter pilot in arguably the best fighter in the world not to fight!!! please...would you have turned tail if your missiles didnt score at 20 miles? I could hear the brief now...Gentleman dont get closer than 50 miles from the SU-27's turn around and land!!
If you read my original question correctly I do not mean to insult the Brits, I love you guys, and am proud to fly alongside of you.happy were on the same team..I just question why its taking so long to get this plane on-line, and with the un-anticipated breakthrough of stealth technology, I find it amazing that any new aircraft, including rafael,and F-18E/F would be fielded without using this great breakthrough. What Jet would you, given the choice, like to go into battle strapped under your butt? I know my answer!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Some people are definitely talking bollox (block anything F16 110% better my a**e). It seems the journo is more informed and realistic than anyone else. Typhoon is/will be in an acceptable timetable, a good piece of kit. It will match any foreseeable threat. F22 will be better but we can't afford it.
Stealth is very specialised and very expensive. There is only 1 country in the world for whom that makes sense. When it comes in to service Typhoon will have plenty of problems, as does every modern fighter - the mighty F15 had big problems but had billions thrown at it. We can't afford to do that and that is always the bottom line - money. Be realistic. It's what the brits are good at!
Remember there are 2 types of aircraft - fighters and targets
ps No I don't work for BAE
Stealth is very specialised and very expensive. There is only 1 country in the world for whom that makes sense. When it comes in to service Typhoon will have plenty of problems, as does every modern fighter - the mighty F15 had big problems but had billions thrown at it. We can't afford to do that and that is always the bottom line - money. Be realistic. It's what the brits are good at!
Remember there are 2 types of aircraft - fighters and targets
ps No I don't work for BAE
Guest
Posts: n/a
Roc,
What would you rather have: 2/3 EFs or one F22? And TVC for a BVR ac? Really crucial to its capabilities? Don't think so. I'm sure that they will train for close-in air combat but when it comes to seeing off the bad guys for real, don't you think they'll rely on sensor fusion and long-legged missiles to fire and eff off from a v. long way?
What would you rather have: 2/3 EFs or one F22? And TVC for a BVR ac? Really crucial to its capabilities? Don't think so. I'm sure that they will train for close-in air combat but when it comes to seeing off the bad guys for real, don't you think they'll rely on sensor fusion and long-legged missiles to fire and eff off from a v. long way?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I can back Jacko up on the 90%. A whole series of tests was run using generic cockpits (and I'm not talking Microsoft FS here) configured to represent a variety of fighters, and it showed that EF comes out at 90% of F-22 capability, with nothing else coming close. That's pretty bløødy impressive given the relative cost of the two, and more than enough when you consider the opposition. Given sensible ROE the F-22 is the only fighter that can best the EF, and it is not completely one-sided, either. I don't think we will ever be fighting F-22s in the near future.
Don't knock it cos its Euro - it may just turn out to be a bløødy good aircraft.
And I don't work for BAE GmbH either
Don't knock it cos its Euro - it may just turn out to be a bløødy good aircraft.
And I don't work for BAE GmbH either
Guest
Posts: n/a
In peacetime no-one wants to do anything but close-in manoeuvring. But in the fog of war, however likely you are to 'wax' the other guy, a close-in fight is always unpredictable, and there's always the danger that his unseen wingman will fall on you unnnoticed and 'Ker-pow'.
If you're out of BVR missiles it's time to go home and re-load.
And yes, if I failed I would eff off very fast and then come in again for a second BVR attempt. And so would you. You would, you would, you would, you would!
Stealth didn't help the F-117 bloke in Kosovo very well, did it?
And while one versus one, the F-22 might win, imagine multi-aircraft formations of both, climbing and accelerating to their optimum missile firing points. EF has DVI to let the formation leader sort the targets for his entire formation (if he disagrees with the aircraft's solution!) and has a Ramjet-boosted BVR missile, while the F-22 formation leader is using alphanumeric buttons on his UFC, and only has AMRAAM. Who wins then?
[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 17 October 2000).]
If you're out of BVR missiles it's time to go home and re-load.
And yes, if I failed I would eff off very fast and then come in again for a second BVR attempt. And so would you. You would, you would, you would, you would!
Stealth didn't help the F-117 bloke in Kosovo very well, did it?
And while one versus one, the F-22 might win, imagine multi-aircraft formations of both, climbing and accelerating to their optimum missile firing points. EF has DVI to let the formation leader sort the targets for his entire formation (if he disagrees with the aircraft's solution!) and has a Ramjet-boosted BVR missile, while the F-22 formation leader is using alphanumeric buttons on his UFC, and only has AMRAAM. Who wins then?
[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 17 October 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jackonicko and All
Stealth may not have helped that chap on that one particular sortie in Kosavo, But it sure as hell helped THOUSANDS of others on thousands of other sorties in places like Panama and Bahgdad, Have you forgotten those pictures of downtown Bahgdad, with tracers arcing everywhere, Not ONE BULLET HOLE in any F-117!!!So please dont underestimate the importance of stealth, you guys lose alot of credibility when you do..Now, it seems from this debate that the Euro-fighter is alot more capable than I had originally thought. If these comparisons are correct than on a cost per capability basis it sounds like the Typhoon will be a real winner, and a welcome addition to the arsenal of democracy..I just had some reservations concerning the lack of Stealth technologies. Thanks to all for the education!
Stealth may not have helped that chap on that one particular sortie in Kosavo, But it sure as hell helped THOUSANDS of others on thousands of other sorties in places like Panama and Bahgdad, Have you forgotten those pictures of downtown Bahgdad, with tracers arcing everywhere, Not ONE BULLET HOLE in any F-117!!!So please dont underestimate the importance of stealth, you guys lose alot of credibility when you do..Now, it seems from this debate that the Euro-fighter is alot more capable than I had originally thought. If these comparisons are correct than on a cost per capability basis it sounds like the Typhoon will be a real winner, and a welcome addition to the arsenal of democracy..I just had some reservations concerning the lack of Stealth technologies. Thanks to all for the education!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Roc,
It's good to see reasoned debate winning the day on Pprune for a change without having having to resort to verbal fisticuffs. One more point on this before the thread dies: the USAF has realised that it's EW capability has fallen below acceptable levels and US industry shows no sign of scaling back its design and production of traditional jammers and RWRs. If stealth was the only way forward, the US would not be investing in these technologies and programs such as the EA6B improvement capability program.
It's good to see reasoned debate winning the day on Pprune for a change without having having to resort to verbal fisticuffs. One more point on this before the thread dies: the USAF has realised that it's EW capability has fallen below acceptable levels and US industry shows no sign of scaling back its design and production of traditional jammers and RWRs. If stealth was the only way forward, the US would not be investing in these technologies and programs such as the EA6B improvement capability program.
Guest
Posts: n/a
UAE thought F16/60 was a better deal than EF, even with all the cocking around about releasing software codes. Greece *might* sign up for EF, with full industrial participation (although apparently Rafale is still in with a shout), but was happy to pay hard cash for a similar number of F16/50+ even when they were refused the top-of-the line engines. Bottom line is, our latest fighter is losing export sales to a derivative of a 1970's US design. Once JSF comes into the equasion EF is really going to struggle to sell.
Stealth isn't everything but it certainly is *something*, supercruise offers distinct tactical advantages and I think you'll find the US has been operating various types of PA radars successfully for some time now, so they should be able to get the F22 radar to work.
As for the various tests 'proving' EF is 90% as good as the F22 - at what? And who did the tests? The F22 had to prove it was better than the F23 to get the go-ahead, what did EF have to do?
I'm not saying EF is totally useless - it's certainly better than anything we've got now - but it's not clearly better than aircraft that are in service NOW, so what will the situation be in 20 years time?
Meteor - we'll see, but I won't be holding my breath. In the meantime, the US will have AMRAAM+ by about 2005 and possibly a gel-fueled version with ramjet range by 2010 or so. Doubtless Vympnel won't be too idle, either.
------------------
S. Potter, Esq
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the WAR ROOM!"
Stealth isn't everything but it certainly is *something*, supercruise offers distinct tactical advantages and I think you'll find the US has been operating various types of PA radars successfully for some time now, so they should be able to get the F22 radar to work.
As for the various tests 'proving' EF is 90% as good as the F22 - at what? And who did the tests? The F22 had to prove it was better than the F23 to get the go-ahead, what did EF have to do?
I'm not saying EF is totally useless - it's certainly better than anything we've got now - but it's not clearly better than aircraft that are in service NOW, so what will the situation be in 20 years time?
Meteor - we'll see, but I won't be holding my breath. In the meantime, the US will have AMRAAM+ by about 2005 and possibly a gel-fueled version with ramjet range by 2010 or so. Doubtless Vympnel won't be too idle, either.
------------------
S. Potter, Esq
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the WAR ROOM!"