There are two things I was pointing out. One is huge RCS and second overweight.

Well, D*cktard. Huge RCS as to compared to what, Flanker? And yet again, providing an image doesn’t determine that the Typhoon is overweight. Would you like to attempt to prove again?

You can see every thing sticks out from EF. RCS is not even worth discussing.

In case you didn’t notice, you can see “everything sticks out” on the Flanker, too. Neither are Stealth so what is the point of you brining it up, running out of ‘Russia Stronk’ claims?

EF takeoff runs are not so much different from other planes like J-10.

Well, Typhoon can take-off with full external drop tanks, a full A/A/QRA configuration from Leh Air Base (world’s highest airport), perform aerobatics and land using one engine. Work it out.

Typhoon cannot be made into carrier planes.

It was never a requirement. So other than your point being irrelevant, what is it?

It is also not reliable.

Says whom, you?

new plane entering service without electronic scanning radar.

Yes, because all your Russian fighters have entered operational service with an AESA.

Keep it up. It’s amusing seeing you make yourself look like a loony.

Mind the door doesn’t hit your ar*e on the way out, Snaf.

typhoon RCS 1/100 of Su-27SM with all those external loads?. another BS claim. just look all the external proturberance and afterburner. I am not even posting those J-10 and EF video take off comparision. EF is simply overweight.

So, you’re claiming it’s “overweight” and backing up your claim with a picture of Typhoon T1, a 2 seat trainer. That’s your proof, is it? Would you like to go into further detail explaining why Typhoon is overweight or are you just going to do what you normally do, ignore what’s put to you because it interferes with your nonsense beliefs [Russia stronk] and continue to spout off your normal bull-sh*te?

Obviously, it’s going to be the latter.

You’d think by now after all these years that the penny would drop for the fans to learn why top/premier league teams prefer to sign players from the likes of France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina et al and prize them more than national players. English being cr*p has something to do with it.

EF cannot exceed Flanker in single performance parameter. Su-27 can be upgraded to Su-27SM with more powerfull engines, lighter avionics, new FBW, longer range AAM etc.
EF is un upgradable at this point.

Oh, please amuse us… I mean… elaborate about that. I’m on a tour bus with a band with very little to do while travelling between gigs (it’s called having a life, I fully recommend one), so your explanation will keep us amused. Shoot!

Seems like Austria will replace their airforce with Hungarian Gripen C… http://kurier.at/chronik/oesterreich/ungarische-gripen-sollen-wien-sichern/71.253.890

I’ve got no idea what those words say and I doubt that report has any credibility. Saying that, the Gripen was always a better choice than Typhoon for Austria’s needs.

er, Lukos. Your posts are not without merit but maybe a tad biased…

Add to that selective learning and attention & the inability to distinguish subtle yet obvious differences, such as between a F-22 Raptor and a YF-22 Technology Demonstrator and the differences between a CAESAR Demonstrator and a Captor-E, although the penny seems to have dropped on the latter. There’s also the issue of Madrat, Spitfire and myself being apparent Rafale-Fanboys… So much for grown up discussions.

Anyhow,

Following doubts over the timeline for the integration of MBDA-developed Brimstone 2 missiles on the Royal Air Force’s Eurofighter Typhoons, the UK Ministry of Defence has contracted BAE Systems to study the possibility of accelerating the process.

In February the National Audit Office released its Major Projects Report 2013, which claimed the integration of the air-to-surface Brimstone 2 on the Typhoon would not come to pass until 2021. This would result in a two year capability gap, following the retirement of the Panavia Tornado GR4 in 2019.

The £5 million ($8.5 million) contract for an initial study will facilitate an “effective route” to Brimstone 2 integration for the RAF by 2018, according to BAE and MBDA. The study will also explore the possibility of a common launcher that could be used with other RAF weapon systems, such as the latter’s future Spear 3.

BAE is currently carrying out wind-tunnel tests at its facility in Warton, Lancashire, which will assess the aerodynamic effects of carrying the precision-guided weapon on the aircraft.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bae-contracted-to-study-brimstone-2-for-typhoon-400590/

Condolences go out to the family and friends Capitán Fernando Lluna Carrascosa of the Spanish Air Force!*

You can know it as whatever you like. If something is developed from another thing with an acronym that stands for the same name, then I’ll call it that regardless of your pedantry. Either CAESAR is an acronym for Captor AESA Radar or it isn’t, and it is, discussion closed.

Then you’ll look the more silly than you already are, its quite astonishing how you can’t comprehend the differences of the two radars. What exactly don’t you get about ‘CAESAR maiden flight in 2007’ and ‘Captor-E maiden flight in 2014’… Surely Crayons aren’t needed.

Nobody is questioning what the acronyms stand for, we all know what they mean, and it doesn’t really mean both are exactly the same.

It’s untrue and an irrelevance as already pointed out. I’ve drawn on modern air campaigns, maps and strike radius with just one drop tank and 2 SSs to prove that.

So, then why didn’t Typhoon just operate with a single drop tank during Operation Ellamy? Every sortie they flew was with two.

What’s untrue? That Typhoon can’t carry such cruise missiles on it’s inboard wing pylons? That was what Halloweene and others & myself were pointing out earlier, do you think otherwise?

So what was the point in bringing it up?

Because you did.

Without the drop tank issue your point is totally moot.

The word moot seems to be your favourite at the moment. It doesn’t make your point any more valid.

You’re not looking hard enough.

I looked, and I found you to initially start off the argument. By the way, I’m still waiting for you to quote the “Rafale-Numbty” that stated three external drop tanks are the be-all and end-all.

BS. We all know the points are interrelated. Without the drop tank issue, it doesn’t matter jack what pylon the SSs go on. Why were CFTs brought up then?

See below.*

There is no issue except the imaginary one created by Rafale folk. CFTs are mainly for improved aerodynamics on certain mission/flight types. Nothing to do with SS carriage.

Well actually, CFTs have a significant amount to do with Storm Shadow carriage, and Taurus and the likes of Paveway III carriage too for that matter. If Typhoon wants to carry any two of those weapons over a distance that needs more than 1,000 litres of fuel in an external drop tank then CFTs are essential. Fact!

F-35B replaces the Harrier. Since when was Tornado a naval fighter? An F-35A could replace a Tornado but there’s nothing on the cards for that and at the moment Typhoon is the likely candidate with the qualification of Storm Shadow set for later this year along with the phased A2G weapon upgrades going forward to 2018-2020, after which Tornado will be phased out of the RAF in 2021.

Oh gosh. You really need to catch up. In case you haven’t heard… And you obviously haven’t, the RAF too are receiving the F-35B, and they are on the cards to replace the Tornado GR4, as is the Typhoon. See Group Captain Ian Gale’s tweet from months ago whom stated the Typhoon will replace Tornado in the A/G role.