Eurofighter Typhoon

>>32019896
Well it actually flys.
So its automatically better

It works to kill sand monkeys and poor Baltic baboons. It's a good plane, probably won't beat a F-35 in most cases but might get lucky from time to time.

>>32019909
So wait, the F-35's doing vtol and taking off behind my house aren't flying?

>>32019925
No anon, they're hovering. They can just hover very fast.

>>32019948
Oh shit, YOU RIGHT. DESU, I never saw those cocksuckers flying in the morning, only at night when they do VTOL testing.

>>32019896
It's not a reasonable comparison. The F-35 isn't replacing the Typhoon.

>>32019912
It beat the crap out of F/A18s. You can't tell me that the F35 with it's wing loading figures even has a chance to out turn the EF. The only thing the F35 has going for it is muh stealth, as far as air combat goes the EF will fuck your shit up in a dogfight.
>B-but BVR
Great. You just flew in to an enemy that CAN into ECM who jammed the shit out of your electronic systems. The F35 only works against an enemy that will not jam your shit. The only time these two will compete, ever, is if Europe turns to Russia. In that case, we might see these two compete, and the Russians have been heavily investing in to ECM for years. They will fuck your electronic witchcraft. Send all the HARMs you want, don't you think they already have an answer to that too?
America needs air superiority for it's doctrine and has always had it. That's why this plane was designed the way it is. The day you fight a worthy adversary, you will find that air superiority is not a given. And when ECM beats the crap out of BVR and stealth, jets capable of actual flying will reign supreme. This is the Russian doctrine. If they had the jet numbers, they would beat you if you tried to fuck with them on their home turf. If only because your chiefs of staff are so used to being able to do whatever the fuck they want in the air. In a real war, you would get your nose seriously bloodied. If you'd eventually overcome it, I don't know. But you'd be in for a serious wake up call.

The Typhoon if fully upgraded to the latest standard is a highly capable fighter aircraft, also capable of a strike role using precision munitions, and with the speed to act as an interceptor as needed. Of the 4.5 gen aircraft, it compares favourably, except perhaps in cost effectiveness.

In a hypothetical head-to-head fight between a wing of Typhoons and an equal number of F-35s (to the specification they are planned to be once fully in service), with no external support, the F-35s would win because they have an advantage in BVR detection range. If other factors come into play it might be different.

The Typhoons main advantages compared to the F-35 are its speed making it a superior interceptor (Mach 2+, with supercruise) and that it is already in service in large numbers, (while the F-35 is only just beginning to come into service now).

>>32020125
>You can't tell me that the F35 with it's wing loading figures even has a chance to out turn the EF.

Why does it need to outturn anything in an era of LOAL and HOBS?

>>32020125
You seem really passionate and angry about your fourth gen fighter being shit against fifth gen fighters.

>>32020125
>Worthy adversary
>implying there is a worthy adversary to the US

File: F-35s enter UK airspace in escort (side).jpg (88KB, 2048x1199px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 2048x1199px

>>32020165

Allow me to point you to the reasons he thinks this.

>This is the Russian doctrine.

Closet vatnik, using the Typhoon as a false face to try and get people stirred up against it while promoting "Russian doctrine" (That the Typhoon doesn't even follow anyway).

Basically, the thread is a poor attempt at reverse bait, since Typhoon and F-35 (and their associated nations/groups interested in them) have been bro-tier for a long while now. Pic related.

File: F-35typhoonIntegrationUK.gif (88KB, 1305x841px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1305x841px

>>32020220
The fact that he had to jump to a ridiculous scenario where Europe fights with Russia against the US so he could have the opportunity to try and shit on the F-35 supports your point.

File: F-35s enter UK airspace in escort (below).jpg (91KB, 2048x1475px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 2048x1475px

>>32020242

Your pic is the exact image I was looking for in my "pic related", but couldn't locate it and chose a stylish one instead. Good to know the hivemind was working strong.

>>32020242
I mean, the entire point is moot due to the fact that Russia is too poor to do anything but stir up shit in poor Baltic areas and Syria. The heydays of Russia being a significant superpower is over.

>>32020125
This is the exact wrong way to attack F-35. It's AESA radar is highly jam resistant and it's packed to the gills with passive sensors. All radiating ECM at F-35 will get you is a home-on-jam missile right up the ass.

>>32019909
Nice memes, Pierre.

File: jam.gif (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>32020273
Nice try Putin, but your jam doesn't work on 5th gen fighters

>>32020190
>Implying Europe+Russia wouldn't be trouble
>Implying that's unlikely
Trump won, m8. Anything can happen.

>>32020174
I'm passionate about F35 shilling. Ever since last year, I developed a hair trigger for this. That's why I went slightly overboard. Sorry.

>>32020220
>Silently gestures at the NSA scandals, trying to drag Germany in to Iraq, Snowden, the drone strikes in sovereign Pakistan, wiki leaks, Trump and TTIP, the SJWs that ridicule the 2nd amendment and the republicans
You're losing friends in the public eye rapidly over here , m8. A lot of people still like you, but we're pretty disillusioned. I don't think there will be any repercussions, but the US is viewed with a lot of suspicion.

>>32020273
>What is ground based jamming
>What is missile defence

>>32021071
>Ground-based jamming.
Even more liable to get completely assblasted by an unholy onslaught of jammer-equipped decoys, SEAD aircraft slinging AARGM, and strategic aircraft trucking dozens of stealthy cruise missiles. At least airborne radars can try to fuck off if things get dicey. Ground-based sets either die when they first radiate or pack up, relocate, and die when a cruise missile beats them to the next position.

>Missile defense
Lol duhhhhhh. No shit. But the name of the game is oversaturation, and if you think for a second that a full-size SEAD/DEAD operation cant bring the right numbers, you'd best sit down and read a book while grown folks talk.

Easy to work on for the most part at least.

>>32021167
>Oversaturation
Yes. How many ground based systems with their immense freedom to install whatever missile defence they see fit do you think will you be able to overwhelm? All of your stuff is very expensive. I just have to build a jammer capable of jamming the fuck out of AESA-Radars, which is cheap compared to strategic aircraft and cruise missiles and so on
Then I have to build shitloads, which is also cheap and easy - I Just need to bolt them to a flatbed. Your stuff needs to get airborne.
Finally, I have to defend them against your smart weaponry, which might get dicey, but more difficult things have been done. The nice thing about this is, I have all the room I want. Weight or bulk do not really concern me. I could just fill the air with flak shells, just to give the old folks the feeling that they are inna war again and your weaponry is already somewhat hindered, until I bring out the serious defense systems. Above this, non-stealth planes will reign supreme because they can run circles around the F35. The F22 might be a different story, but a war of attrition will bring those down.

>>32019896
If you already have Typhoons, keep them, upgrade them and if you have the need, get a few more, but I wouldn't recommend to start a new fleet of them now. If you have the cash for Typhoons, you have the cash for F-35s and should buy them. If you don't have the cash, get the Grippen or a later model MiG-29.

Under absolutely no circumstance except a hefty personal bribe from Dassult should you get the Rafale, since they are ludicrously overpriced and can for the most part only use french munitions, which are ALSO overpriced.

>>32021343
>get the Grippen or a later model MiG-29

Opinion thoroughly discarded.

>>32021343
I personally think you get more bang for your buck with a fully kitted Typhoon but that's just because I have a part in selling them.

The Gripen is fine if you want cheap though.

>>32021324
Your missile defense will always be inherently disadvantaged against airpower that can engage and disengage at will. Your area denial is challenged on our terms, not yours, and we are perfectly capable of analyzing your defenses and subverting them before you can reconfigure them. Your jammers on flatbeds don't have the mobility to keep pace with our complex of sensors, decoys, and strike options. We can feign entire air assaults, EW and all, that waste your interceptors and reveal your positions to our forces, so we can attack you while all your jammers, radars, and missiles are pointed elsewhere. You've already admitted that stealth munitions can readily challenge your point defenses; how are you possibly going to defeat those munitions when they're brought to you by VLO aircraft you can't track until a fraction of your normal window, and conventional aircraft attacking safely from outside your range by handing off guidance to VLO planes you can't effectively track? All after you got hit with a wave of jamming decoys that either baited you into emitting and firing at nothing or forced you to conduct slow and complicated signal comparison that gutted your rate of operational cycles?

Non-VLO aircraft can't run circles around something they can't even track and they certainly can't run circles around AIM-120s. On the off chance you manage to get conventional birds anywhere near F-35s without getting jumped by F-22s, F-35s will more than happily throw you an AMRAAM guided passively up your ass while you fumble around in the dark for them, with no effective early warning besides the most general S/C/L band tracks. That shut isn't gonna cut it against VLO aircraft and Russia knows it, or they wouldn't have bothered even with Pak-fa's rudimentary stealth features.

>>32021377
he did say thats the budget option, if you can afford better you buy better

>>32019896
It is just a raphale with a different skin.

>>32022323
Its less than half the price, ~100 million USD compared with ~220-300 million. Hell of an expensive paint job the french use.

>>32022386
lolwut, the Rafale is around $80-90m

>>32022424

Older, simpler Rafale models tothe French Air Force who get massive subsidising and whom the French audit office removes what they get back in tax plus home industry in general got those prices. Even the French ones are more these days as they got more advanced.

But for exports...

http://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2014/jul/25/Why-Rafale-is-a-Big-Mistake-639675.html

"For 36 Rafales the acquisition cost, according to Brazilian media, was $8.2 billion plus an additional $4 billion for short-period maintenance contracts, amounting to nearly $340 million per aircraft in this package and roughly $209 million as the price tag for a single Rafale without maintenance support"

"During the Congress party’s rule the Indian government did not blink at the prospective bill for the Rafale, which more than doubled from $10 billion in 2009 to some $22 billion today, and which figure realistically will exceed $30 billion, or $238 million per aircraft, at a minimum."

>$209m
>WITHOUT maintenance support

Also because if you don't only use French munitions (which are wtf tier expensive) you'll need to pay hundreds of millions for munitions integration.

Also because there is only ONE supply line in the world, so parts are insane, even the British ejector seat they enforce must be made in France, which is why it costs a fuckton more than a normal Martin-Baker, unnecessary expenditure from the eyes of a buyer who isn't interested in France's "muh industry" standpoint, who only want price.

>>32022480
That's still an acquisition cost, not a flyaway cost like you're using with the Typhoon.

>>32019896
Best Eurocanard in terms of air to air

It's a great plane. And it climbs like a fucking champ https://youtu.be/wCqiiOO3ZzI?t=174

>>32022588
Relevant at 2.55 because youtube spazzed out.

>>32022498

>Article directly states it is without attached maintenance support
>Typhoon Tranche 3 is confirmed to be $155m with full R&D costs factored in, which are always higher than export contracts
>tfw a Typhoon at its MOST expensive price of any (R&D included) is still cheaper than a Rafale without maintenance included

It's no wonder Brazil told Dassault to fuck off.

>>32022780
Acquisition cost =/= flyaway + R&D
When you buy a jet, you buy ground equipment, spare parts, spare engines, maintenance kits, power carts, simulators, etc. Those go into the $200-300m figure price. The plane itself is ~$90m, just like how the Typhoon itself is ~$100-$120m.

File: Eurofighter Typhoon ASRAAM.jpg (684KB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 4288x2848px

>>32019896
Better kinometric performance, but inferior sensors and sensor fusion and no stealth. Still very potent against 4.5 Gen and down (especialt Tranche 3 with AESA and METEOR), but at a significant disadvantage vs. Gen5. It's Europe's F-15C.

It's fine.