As much as i like Army type stuff i do have a unhealthy interest in aircraft so here is a question. Aside from F35 being the new messiah how does Typhoon compare to it? It seems that Typhoon has been around for years if you include EAP in 1986. Of course Tranche 1 is a lot different to latest but underneath design wise its still the same aircraft so how come its held its own for so long? Did we (ill include the European partners in this as well) actually do something right for once? This is where we need Magic Mushroom to chip in!
At the risk of missrepresenting the man, I believe MMs opinion on the matter was - F35 and Typhoon are a good combo they complement each other well and the USAF is itself envious of the mix**.
He could then elaborate on why stealth isnt binary - that typhoon has (some) Low Observable charecteristics (eg recessed missiles)
**Dont forget the much vaunted F22 is something of a silver bullet in US service
From the outset, Typhoon was looked at in terms of peers and threats. The ranking peer on our side was the F-22, which was/is superb but hideously expensive. The Warsaw Pact peer was Su-27 - essentially their F-15 - and its successors (if we're tracing Typhoon's lineage to the EAP, then the Su-35 is essentially a Su-27).
In some respects, we went for an 80 percent solution. F-22 was the 100 percent but way out of everyone's budgetary range - even the Americans bought far fewer than they wanted (it was supposed to replace the F-15). But the 80 percent solution was intended to beat - consistently - the Su-27/follow-ons and anything other than the F-22. That includes the US teen jets, and Rafale (cue the howls of protest).
It's not just about kinetic performance. It's about electronic, too. For instance, an early F-16 is probably sprightlier than a later one in a turning fight, but you would rather be in the later version; better radar, better missiles (with high off-foresight cueing) and so on.
Typhoon is a
very able dogfighter. Get in close enough and it'll take the F-22 (all things being equal, such as evenly matched pilots and so on). It'll struggle to get in close because of F-22's electronic capabilities, though. There are vectored-thrust solutions out there for it but it's been decided it doesn't need them, and anyone who's seen Typhoon sitting in the air pretty much on thrust alone will understand why.
In terms of electronic capabilities, Typhoon was supposed to prevent the 'fleets within fleets' that Tornado became. In some ways it succeeded, in others it failed. The Germans decided a long time ago that it couldn't afford all the bells and whistles. It went for a more austere electronics fit. The RAF got the full-fat version and very good it is, too. The defensive aids sub-system has recently been upgraded. The Germans have since realised that they need similar to be in the game.
The outstanding must-have is an AESA radar. We've dragged our heels (£££s) but the German/Spanish decision to fit one has kicked us into action. The Leonardo solution we're looking to get is apparently
very good and will probably grow to be a part of Tempest.
In terms of Gen 4/5, the Typhoon is a decade and more on from the F-15/16/18 in terms of original concept, and that's reflected in its performance.
The Americans like the Typhoon. Its only failing in their eyes is Not Invented Here, otherwise we'd probably see it in USAF squadron service. Mixing the Typhoon with the F-35 is a capability that the Americans would love to have (remember how few F-22s there are) and Typhoon/F-35 has proven potent against F-22 on exercise; Typhoon on its own against F-22 loses but Typhoon cued by F-35 wins.
In other words, the RAF has a very nice sharp-end capability. We need Wedgetail in service - it's not all about the sexy stuff - but that's coming.
I wish in terms of front-end kit that the army was in anywhere near the shape that the Light Blue is.
www.airbus.com
