Eurofighter - Typhoon Fighter Aircraft 

yea. Computer games are for entertainment. I watch documentaries because i want to learn.

and how old are you anyways? XD saying computer games.... jesus. its video games!

blaster915 I think your confusing time/era with country/location. Military documentaries always like that, in America. Not in Britain which this documentary was made.

Sounds like the same type of idiots who argue with me saying that because they live near the EuroCopter manufacturing areas that they know more about them I do even though they are not pilots and have never flown anything while I am a licensed chopper pilot and have flown the MD-902, S-92, UH-60, AS350 and two versions of the HU-1 lol

I agree everybody’s on Monday morning quarterback

+AdemJashari56 Yes, a beautiful aircraft.

Migs are great but the mig 29 was swept from the skys by the Americans and Israeli s. The US knows jet fighting lie the back of its hand.

witch are the other 4? when you talk about aesthetics the sukhoi SU 57 is my favorite

around 44 to 45 min one pilot, while flying thru the dark surrounding night, states toward his comrades......."some things are surely amazing", talking about the ability to see details on the ground even so it is totally dark around. that is quite some achievement. theres almost no hiding before this kind of sigint capability and power. he's literally gazing at those features, disbelief in his voice but realizing that all is really happening. wow! really remarkable that such things are already functioning in a battlefield environment! i wonder what there will be coming next, wonder what kind of thing will come up to "neutralize" those sigint capability. in ancient saga "nibelungen saga" there is a guy that becomes invincible by wearing a hat.......i wonder if theres someone out there, figuring what to do in order to build such hats or maybe suits. such a suit would need to have the capability to pass light straight thru or better around a target in a way that looks as if it was going straight thru, the same goes for radiation and heatwaves. this will be one of the next big things to come i believe.

XiLeFFeLiX congrats dude wish you all the best :)

+Dave Andrew On my youtube picture?? And Ive chose to go with my National Grid Apprenticeship its better overall

+Dave Andrew I'm doing project management at National Grid, i was the harder job to get its better paid and i get a 15 plate car on top not bad and i think your on about my Facebook Picture because my youtube picture doesn't look thug

You're a fucking idiot.

Well said, vader1a! I could not have said it better. What some us want is intelligent reports.

Why do you say that???

+vader1a. Agreed 100%. Too many newer documentaries are either made by idiots, narrated by idiots or aimed at idiots. A lot of good video footage is so often wasted and ruined by a narrator who offers very little in the way of interesting facts & data, but instead invents dramatic scenarios designed to keep as many morons as possible entertained for the minimum amount of effort, research & expense.

Yea..stuck up bastard always knocking on how Americans sound...sirry we dont speak with an accent. I guess Brits can make even a shit sandwich sound good to the uneducated lol.

lol “Nah-uh” in “American”

On the quiet the RAF may have called it the phantom for the plain fact they thought they'd never see one in real life lol

oh yeah?.................source please, of this ridiculous claim!

***** Nope, I do have the source, Aviation claims yes that the F-22 lost due to bad tactics, but if you actually look at the Red Flag score boards or "brag" boards you will see The Eurofighter, did lose a lot the F-22, Media just bullshits and Russian and Pro-Eurofighter Media bullshits even more

IBT98 Still no posted source eh?............we all know you are making it up!

scrmepal www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread278146/pg1

IBT98 Even if this is true and by the way, your source is from 2007 where the EF not even participated at Red Flag once, the problem of the Red Flag exercises is the way they count the kills. A target lock for a few moments is cosidered as a kill and thats not really realistic. There are some Situation in WVR combat, where you can lock an oponent, but if you would shoot a missile, it would be unable to hit the target. They don't take countermeasures and evasive manouvers in to consideration. And it gets even worse in BVR combat. It's known that at even optimal conditions, about 50% of the AIM-120 missiles wouldn't hit their target if used in a BVR scenario. Red Flag is a nice exercise for fighter pilots, but that's about it.

+VEI DORJE the position of the air intakes has nothing to do with the engines they are just as close in the rafale as in the ef. the engines are in the middle of the aircraft in both jets

Landing loads, landing gear strength and slow speed stability are all important on a carrier. I thought it was because the typhoon was not up to the carrier landings, this would explain why they are not going on Royal Navy carriers. It was after all designed for the RAF as a thorough bred. The Royal Navy is not surprisingly following the Harrier development, BAE is building them and usually put their own twist on USA equipment so it will be interesting to see what develops as a comparison.

***** hey stupid. The Craptor already loss to: Rafale,HAF's F16 Blck 52,EF,F18, and T-38 Talon. STFU

***** You look tired already peon. The word ''propaganda'' is a trademark of USA

Bill Tran its your logic through propaganda. Think something better

Bill Tran 1)That was between USAF jets. 2) Dare to try this on Sukhoi family....

? There isn't a fighter in service that could make raptor salad. Ya the Sukhoi's are sexy as hell, but we incorporated the only...only advantage the Sukhoi family ever had, Thrust vectoring. There is a reason why every country out there was begging to buy Raptor's...that was Raptor's, and why The Sukhois have so many failed oversea's sales. The F-22 would eat the T-50's lunch. It can cruise at mach 1.8 without afterburners and it's radar cross section is the size of a MARBLE. Yes I know the T-50's is the size of a tennis ball, but this even before they apply any kind of stealth coatings. When they apply the new f-35's coating it's good luck because the only way you are going to see it is in your rear-view while it's guns chew the back of your plane off. The beautiful thing is the way the avionics package works. The raptors work in wolf packs, but with one of the jets in the scout role out front. He has all of non vital electronics off and his computer is feeding off of the other raptors information. When they eventually pick up the Sukhois and they will eventually guess what happens next. ya the raptor rolls over and assume a high attack angle while it deploys several missiles. In that attitude the jet is maintaining it's stealth by hiding the bottom door opening. About the time your Sukhois find the raptors it's time to eat lead.

Dassault Rafale is the best engineered fighter in the history of European military aviation. . Its a DASSAULT !!!! enough said. .Even the Americans have long acknowledged Dassault Aviation as the Europe's one and only independent Fighter Aircraft Prime Contractor , its 100% French !

FORBAN2 They even use DASSAULT software to design their planes

GoFlyDude Dassault Systems is the world leader in developing software solutions for aviation.

***** Marketing. The US promised the Netherlands a superior and affordable fighter (F35). We made big initial payments and we're allowed to produce F35 parts, now with all the F35 problems, we can't (really) get out. There are many countries in projects like these, the number of sales doesn't say a lot about how good the product is.

***** Rafale defeated Typhoon in every fighter competition so far.. India ordered 126 planed with option for an additional 63.. the negotiations are in their final stage..Also the UAE is very interested and will most probaby order the Rafale after they kicked out Typhoon for good.

Lennart Hi Lennart, I agree with you.

Lennart well, I sort of agree with you, but I would broaden that concept and say no one should buy the f-35 - its impossible to have one airframe fulfill all the functions the designers were hoping it could. I would've thought people would know some history because the Nazi's tried to have one airframe perform multiple, but very differing, roles in ww2 and that was disastrous for the unfortunate pilots that had to fly those mission.

+Lennart you forgot one issue: Corruption? The decision for a combat airplane is not only which is better. Many politicians decide to buy a plane because they get some millions as bribe. For example The F104 in Germany, Stauß was corrupt and decided for F104.

Thorsten Kümmel I think thats lobbying, not really corrupt. Though there might be some dirty business going on. The US blackmailed Norway into the F-35 by saying theyll cut off the supplies of systems that Saab needs to build the Gripen, should norway choose for the Gripen.

Ok, I think you know what I mean.

***** The Eurofighter is already operational. Are you missing something?

Jason Leuschen That man already exists and he is in power. Vladimir Putin. Easily and without a doubt is that ma.

Jason Leuschen There was a Canadian diplomat in the 80s I think who said that if the Soviet Union broke down,the US would have to create a second one to survive.I did find the overlap between his prediction and today's western media rhetoric interesting.Where you're wrong though is that it wasn't a prediction or witchcraft at all,just British and American foreign policy.

+Jason Leuschen Lol maybe US might have an imperialist in 2017...Trump.

Jason Leuschen

You do still need ground attack for taking out tanks. If Russia decides it'd better to invade than do business with us, you need ground attack. They're also useful for providing air cover for troops doing humanitarian operations where there's an unfriendly ground force. Rather than get into a protracted gunfight, ground troops just call in the enemy's position to their air cover, & *BOOM* - threat neutralised.

@ tommot1211 You need to know your subject better if I may say so. The original partners included France. It was a 5 Nation Consortium. After the many iterations and drafts of designs France withdrew in late 1985 after their demands to dominate the project were rejected and a cynic may suggest the Rafale has a more than passing resemblance to the Typhoon... A year later the three private companies involved built and flew the first demonstration aircraft (the EAP) at their own expense. It was always designed as a multi-role aircraft and that is what it is. France left because it doesn't like playing second fiddle to Britain let alone Germany and it was National pride and nothing to do with design discussions! And with the greatest respect, and as I have said before, you basically have two air bases in Suffolk (near where I live) and they are training and forwarding bases. Quite how much F15s at Lakenheath could add to the capability of the Typhoons and Tornados based in the UK I really don't know even if the US President would permit their use. Oh and by the way Lakenheath is the only attack air base in Europe now given the F16s have been withdrawn from Aviano, Italy and Spangdahlem, Germany. So your belief we build aircraft relying on non existent US air bases is really quite laughable and sort of shows how out of touch you Americans are.

1chish I am well aware of the five nation original consortium. So quit jumping to [false] conclusions. France was not seeking to dominate. So quit with the famous British spin. Fact is Dassault had decades of experience over the other members and France wanted a multirole that would serve both air force and naval carrier needs. France is the only country besides the US with a real aircraft carriers. UK is still wedded to assnine STOVL "jump jet" and "sky jump" carrier contraptions. Sounds a bit jumpy to me. Russia finally ditched their Yak "jump jets" but kept those ridiculous ski jump contraptions on their carriers all the same. As for the F-35B version, you'll eventually find it to be little better than the current Harrier: short range; limited stores and terrible performance characteristics. Another widow maker waiting in the wings (pun intended). Fact: Rafale went into service five (5) full years ahead of Typhoon. Typhoon doesn't have ASEA radar. Typhoon lost a major sale to your former colony, India. Sale went to Rafale and Rafale was nearly purchased by Brazil, (with no consideration of Typhoon) but lost out to Gripen (Sweden) only on price. On top of all this, Rafale beat Typhoon and even beat the vaunted F-22 Raptor at Red Flag exercise. Unlike Rafale, Typhoon which is way overpriced, has little or no ground attack capability (non multirole). So maybe, just maybe the real reason France and Dassault walked out on you is because they finally realized they were dealing with a bunch assholes. THERE, I SAID IT! As for you insipid nationalistic bluster. Just where were those F-111's deployed all those years in Europe during the Cold War? And B-52's as well? Mainly Britain and Germany, is the correct answer. So much for my being "out of touch". What garbage!

***** WHATEVER ... Why do I get the feeling 'muppetrolf' has created another profile.....?? hhmmm

1chish Fact is Dassault of France has far more experience in fighter aircraft manufacture than almost anyone. More than Britain, far more than Germany and entirely more than Italy and Spain. The only other fighter you built in recent years besides Typhoon was the Tornado. It had only one export customer to my memory, Saudi Arabia, who only purchased it because the US at the time refused to sell the Saudis F-15's under pressure from the Israeli lobby. The Saudis couldn't wait to be rid of it and even went so far as to contact Dassault to construct for them the Mirage 4000. But the deal collapsed when the US State Dept. finally permitted the sale of the F-15 to the Saudis. So now it is understood that Dassault has been in the forefront of fighter plane sales across the globe for decades while the Euro consortium can't seem to get its britches on right.

***** Are you really that stupid and ignorant or are you just a Troll looking to piss people off by saying: " Dassault of France has far more experience in fighter aircraft manufacture than almost anyone. More than Britain, far more than Germany" ?? Now listen up dipshit: Dassault may have sort of existed before the war but actually built there first aircraft in 1947. Let me repeat that ... 1947.... And it was a fat arsed transport plane. Their first jet fighter was built in '52. 10 years after the British Meteor, 12 years after the British E39/28 and 11 years after the German ME262. We can forget the USA as they never had one until we gave them a Whittle engine in '41 and never had a jet fighter until '45. I never wasted my time reading past your first paragraph as it was so full of utter crap.... Now given your total ignorance of the subject just fuck off and stop wasting our time you child!

You can say that again!!!

Which one?

***** The RAFALE beats the Typhoon in almost every flight regime..

Coronado326 Eurofighter is faster at both high and low altitudes, has a higher service ceiling, has a longer range, has a better thrust-to-weight ratio, and has a better rate of climb than the Rafale. And that's just the performance of the airframe, I could start talking about the electronics too.

Unit 2357 Don't talk please , do me a favour . Rafale beat the Eurofighter in each and every technical fighter evaluation so far. Starting in Korea in 2002 Singapore, Brazil, Switzerland, UAE and last but not least in India..Every single time .. Its not only superior ground attack fighter but its also better in A2A, The Rafale's electronic warfare system, SPECTRE is few miles ahead of Typhoons DASS. and the speed is not that important, the F-22 is optimized for Mach1.7 F-35 for 1.6 Also the Rafale has the longer range . rafalenews.blogspot.com.tr/2011/11/switzerland-armasuisewiss-ranked-rafale.html Eurofighter thrust ratio (1.07:1) at a full fuel and armament load, but it’s not much more than the Rafale’s 0.99:1. Its rate of climb (315 m/s, i.e. 62,000 ft/min) and top speed (Mach 2) are also only slightly better than the Rafale’s and do not justify the Typhoon’s much higher cost (£125 mn per copy). The Typhoon’s service ceiling, 55,000 ft, is the same as the Rafale’s, the wing loading ratio (312 kg/sq m) is slightly inferior, and its combat radius is decisively inferior: just 601 km for low level lo combat mission, and 1,389 km for a high-level (hi) mission better than the former, but still much less than the Rafale’s 1,800+ kms. The Typhoon’s 27mm gun caliber is slightly smaller than the Rafale’s, and it can carry 13 missiles - the same as a Rafale M, one missile less than the Rafale B/C variants. So the Typhoon is slightly better than the Rafale on 3 parameters, slightly inferior two, equivalent on two others, and decisively inferior on one. Another advantage the Rafale has over is the fact that the Rafale can operate from aircraft carriers and has done so since 2001. The Typhoon, as she is too heavy to operate from carriers and not to mention the nuclear strike capability of the RAFALE.. The Rafale has already proven itself in three different wars. In Afghanistan, it performed numerous ground strikes against he Taleban, sometimes with GBU-12 Paveway II bombs used against Taleban caves. In Libya, it successfully evaded Qaddafi’s air defense systems and led the fight against his regime. in Mali, the Rafale flew long distances to perform strikes against Islamic insurgents. Thus, the Rafale is a veteran of three wars despite entering service only a little more than a decade ago, a stark distinction to all of its western competitors except the Super Hornet IN SHORT: THE RAFALE IS THE BETTER ALL ROUND MULTI ROLE FIGHTER AND MUCH BETTER VALUE FOR MONEY .. IF YOU HAVE THE RAFALE, YOU DON'T NEED ANY OTHER FIGHTER. YOU CAN DO THINGS WITH RAFALE WHICH YOU CAN'T DO WITH ANY OTHER FIGHTER EXCEPT PERHAPS THE F-35 .IN TWO YEARS WE WILL KNOW HOW GOOD THE F-35 IS ..ONE THING IS FOR SURE, THE AVIONICS ON F-35 WOULD MAKE OTHERS LOOK LIKE TOYS.

Coronado326 A German analyst whose notes I've been reading stated that the SPECTRA has some GPS-related features that may make it better than the DASS, however, he went on to say that both systems are prettymuch classified, with regards to their exact capabilities, so whilst he would rate the SPECTRA better, it's all speculation for now. The Rafale's OSF is basically the same as the EF's PIRATE, although from what I've read, electronic processing of the the signal from the EF's IRST means that the EF has a max identification range which is ~45 km further than the Rafale. The EF's CAPTOR-E is vastly superior to the Rafale's current RBE2 (although the RBE2-AA replacing the RBE2 should offer large improvements over the stock RBE2, although, lacking any definite specifications, any comparison I make would be speculation for now). Eurofighter (EF) Tranche 3A costs €90mil per aircraft, some Rafale variants can cost €90mil. That's the aircraft unit cost without factoring in the cost of the project as a whole. You, because you're an intellectually dishonest little asshole, factored in the project cost for the EF, but not for the Rafale. That's why the Rafale appeared to be the cheaper option. But, if you really want to factor in project costs; the Rafale project cost France €45.9bn for 130 aircraft, whilst the EF cost the UK €46.4bn for 160 aircraft. So they're basically the same, if not a little more expensive for the Rafale. So, the EF has a better- -Thrust-to-Weight -Max. speed -Service ceiling -Rate-of-climb -Range than the Rafale, all while being >€63mil cheaper (cost per plane per project) than the Rafale. The Rafale has a range of >3700 km _WITH 3 DROP TANKS_ whereas the EF has a range of >3790 km with 3 drop tanks. I'm assuming that you missed the part next to the Rafale's range on Wikipedia where it said "with three drop tanks", and that you missed the fact that the EF's range on wikipedia is given on internal fuel only, and it's "ferry range" is the one which tells you the range on three drop tanks. That's more wikipedia's fault than anyone's but you could at least try to compare the two planes fairly. The cannons are basically equally matched; the Mauser is 20 kg lighter, carries 25 more rounds, fires it's projectiles >75 m/s faster (which are the same weight as the GIAT's and therefore pack more punch), whereas the GIAT has a higher fire-rate. Only the Rafale M is carrier-capable, the normal Rafale C is not. The Rafale is not intrinsically carrier-capable; a special version of the Rafale had to be designed for carrier use because a standard Rafale C cannot be operated from a carrier. Therefore neither the Rafale C, or the EF *_(the planes that we are comparing)_* are carrier-capable. Although, if you want to start comparing the Rafale M instead of the Rafale C, I'm sure that the Rafale M will be worse than the Rafale C. (The same way that if you compare an F-35A to an F-35C, the STOVL version will be worse). There is no carrier-capable variant of the EF because none of the countries operating the EF needed it, so they didn't waste their time/effort/money developing something they didn't need or want. It has nothing to do with the weight of the aircraft. The EF can use a much wider array of weapons than the Rafale, and the EF can share a lot of weapons with the US, Canada, and other NATO forces that the Rafale cannot, meaning much more inter-operability in joint-forces missions. Even then, the EF is continually being adapted to utilise more weapons, keeping it up to date and expanding its potential. This also means that the EF could most certainly be adapted to deliver the ASMP-A nuclear missile if it was desired by any of the operating countries, but the reason why the EF is not nuclear-capable is because it was decided long ago that it's much more cost-effective, safe, and most-importantly _secure,_ to hide your nukes in a submarine. The aircraft's deployment record has nothing to do with its performance, so there's no point in bringing it up here. If we're measuring our performance by combat history now, then surely the Bf 109 is a better aircraft than either the EF or the Rafale.

Coronado326 You said: " _its combat radius is decisively inferior: just 601 km for low level lo combat mission, and 1,389 km for a high-level (hi) mission better than the former, but still much less than the Rafale’s 1,800+ kms_ " The EF lists combat radius for lo-lo-lo missions, hi-lo-hi missions as well as for a 3-hr patrol and 10-min loiter. The Rafale on the other hand lists a "penetration mission". *There are no comparable missions here, **_so I don't see how in the fuck you think that you can compare the ranges for said missions._* Now, a penetration mission, as listed by the Rafale, basically means the maximum distance that the jet can travel before returning, so basically it should be half of the range. The Rafale has a range of ~3700 km with 3 drop tanks, and the radius for a 'penetration mission' is ~1850 km. This confirms that the radius of a penetration mission is just half of the range. Therefore, seeing as a EF has a range of ~3790 with 3 drop tanks, the radius of it's 'penetration mission' would be ~1895; so by your own standards the EF has a better combat radius too. So, it is in fact _superior,_ as opposed to being 'decisively inferior', as you claimed.

***** Thats means nothing. REAL combat, like Iraq, Afganistan, Syria not parking 4 planes in Lithuania :)

You gotta be willing to go into real combat to see it. This AC is incredible, and impresses the hell outta all other AC pilots that go up against it in excercises, and it has extensive attack capability. Worth every dime. If it was just for jobs, they would not have gutted the numbers ordered along with the rest of the Brit military, which is what Obama is doing to the US armed forces. This leftist anti military nonsense is the same as it has been since the 60s, and is always discredited as it always has been, like the mideast wars, falklands etc.

Oh yeah, I forgot, like you leftwing guys have once again been totally discredited with this "end of the cold war" crap. Putin is on hte march, the cold war has started full scale, and it's all because YOU guys encouraged him with all this pacifist appeasement weakness nonsense. Try watching old Star Trek episodes, these guys are like the Klingons, they behave themselves and are easy to deal with as long as you are strong and act like a man, but act like a wuss like Obama and the rest of the west have been doing, and you get bit on the ass.

saburu sakai man this plane, ''The Eurofighter'' its made in 4 factories in 4 diferent countries.(Guess why? SO THAT THEY ALL HAVE JOBS) Bomb one factory, production stops, LOL. They have sended only 4 planes in the east, even Canada, from another continent has sent 6 CF -16, LOL. EU, what a joke !

Goofy deployment has no indication of the quality of the plane. Any one factory can take up the production of components another is makes if needed, but they all make thier own AC. Most other Aircraft are produced at ONE plants adn can be taken out of production by attacking that one plant. Far more redundancy in planes built in several countries like this and the F-16.

Spot on I think.

Looks more like a copy viggen

Original footage is from Late 1990s'/early 2000s'

Pocok4 it was the YF-17, but I was saying they built the YF-22s in the 90s

***** Both aircrafts are jokes !! TSR.2 was one of the worst failures of British aircraft industry ,a paper plane never gone an inch beyond the stage of a prototype , it was a disaster.. ARROW on the other hand was probably a bigger joke.. its proponents are still living in a cloud-cuckooland !

flashy5150 They put a Vulcan in the chin 'cause the missiles the US pilots were firing were P.O.S. They were installed way before it was over.

Jack Sprat Well, I heard from an actual pilot that they didn't have one for "most of the war" and that once they were out of missiles they were sitting ducks. That's good if they actually did put a gun on them -- if you can give me a date on that, I will believe you ?

I just saw the Vulcans fitted under the chins of F-4's on their landing fields and on the flight decks for the navy aircraft.The captions gave the dates as 1969-1970. Of course, being air force and navy authorized photos, they could've been lying (sp?] through their teeth. I'm not claiming the Vulcan during the war as gospel. If you have an F-4 pilot claiming otherwise, I accede to your statement. No machismo " I'm right and every one else is wrong" on my end. I guess I could look it up, but I just stated the pics I saw, not historic gospel.

Yes,the F-4's had gun pods added on "in the late '60's" according to the various articles I looked up. They were added on precisely because they were getting shot up by gun toting MIG's when they ran out of missiles.

Jack Sprat Oh yeah. So in 1968-69 they would have had guns installed by then ? What other jets did the US use in Vietnam, probably the Thunderchief ?

The Typhoon is superior in every aspect to the F-16. Though I would say the F-22 is still far superior for air to air, especially once the modernisation upgrades are done.

The Heads up display on an F35 allows pilots to look down and see under the plane. So lets see how that turns out. The F16 is better then any euro fighter. Just rmove the extra fuel tanks and air to ground bomns

No sir, I know someone who has flown one. And you can Google it. it is real, and they do use it.

If you were to remove the exta fuel tanks and air to ground bombs. then it would be. My cousin flew F16's in iraq he has done it. It is very good.

Here is a good example of a European. Even though they are very out matched they still claim they are the best. most of that shit you said was straight from Wikipedia which i mind you is incorrect.

No sir it is not. you are simply upset at the fact that the US planes are a lot better.

It only took since the mid 70's (as Yak-41) to get the F-35 into service, and is still not as good as advertised. Even if we only count the X-35 that's still over 20 years. :)